Bombay High Court
Sau. Mayavati Rahul Sadar vs The Additional Collector, Akola ... on 29 March, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
wp1818.17.J.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1818
OF 201
7
Sau. Mayavati Rahul Sadar,
Aged about 47 years,
Occ: Household/Sarpanch Gram
Panchayat, Chatari, R/o Chatari
Post: Chatari, Tah. Patur,
District Akola. ....... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] The Additional Collector, Akola,
Tah. & Dist. Akola.
2] The Presiding Officer/The Tehsildar,
Patur, Tehsil Office, Patur,
Tah. Patur, Dist. Akola.
3] Suresh s/o Motiram Mule
Aged about 40 years,
Occ: Cultivator/Up-Sarpanch,
Gram Panchayat, Chatari.
4] Sau. Savita Raju Raut
Aged about 35 years,
Occ: Cultivator/Member,
Gram Panchayat, Chatari.
5] Sau. Nirmal Vasudeo Manjare
Aged about 42 years,
Occ: Cultivator/Member,
Gram Panchayat, Chatari.
6] Rajesh Jayram Kirtane
Aged about 45 years,
Occ: Cultivator/Member,
Gram Panchayat, Chatari.
::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 00:54:46 :::
wp1818.17.J.odt 2/5
7] Kashinath Tulaji Sadar
Aged about 52 years,
Occ: Cultivator/Member,
Gram Panchayat, Chatari.
8] Sau. Mandatai Keshav Lakhade
Aged about 45 years,
Occ: Cultivator/Member,
Gram Panchayat, Chatari.
9] Bhikaji Kisan Kakad
Aged about 35 years,
Occ: Cultivator/Member,
Gram Panchayat, Chatari.
10] Sau. Sunita Sunil Badrakhe
Aged about 28 years,
Occ: Cultivator/Member,
Gram Panchayat, Chatari.
Respondent Nos.2 to 10 are
R/o Chatari, Post: Chatari,
Tah. Patur, Dist. Akola.
11] Secretary, Gram Panchayat,
Chatari, R/o Chatari,
Post: Chatari, Tah. Patur,
District Akola. ....... RESPONDENT S
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri K.R. Lule, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri U.J. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3, 6, 7
and 9.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE: 29 th
MARCH,
7 .
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
wp1818.17.J.odt 3/5
consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2] The motion of no confidence was passed
on 06.05.2016 against the petitioner, who was the Sarpanch.
This was the subject-matter of challenge before the Additional
Collector, who has dismissed the appeal on 10.03.2017. Hence,
the petitioner is before this Court.
3] The question involved before the authorities below
was whether there was a compliance about service of notice of no
confidence in terms of Rule 2 (2B) of the Bombay Village
Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion)
Rules, 1975. In terms of the aforesaid rule every notice of the
meeting of the no confidence motion, whenever it may be
practicable, is to be served by delivering or tendering it to the
Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch to whom it is addressed or, where such
person cannot be found, by delivering or tendering it to any adult
member of his family residing with him. If no such adult member
can be found or, where the Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch or such adult
member, as the case may be, refuses to accept the notice, it shall
be served by affixing it, in the presence of two witnesses, on the
outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which
wp1818.17.J.odt 4/5
such Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch ordinarily dwells. The notice
served in this manner shall be deemed to be served or tendered or
delivered to the concerned Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch.
4] In the present case, it is not in dispute that the
petitioner was Sarpanch was not present in the house when notice
was sought to be served upon her on 03.05.2016.
The panchanama produced on record shows that the house was
locked and hence the notice was affixed on the door of the house.
The panch witnesses have admitted in their cross-examination that
they were not present at the time when panchnama was done. The
Talathi who affixed the notice on the door states that such
intimation was given to one of the panchas on telephone. In view
of this, the panchanama placed on record was not of worth
acceptance, evidencing the service of notice upon the petitioner.
5] Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent Nos.3, 6, 7 and 9, has urged that there is absence
of pleading in the memo of appeal before the authority concerned
that the husband of the petitioner (adult member) was present in
the house when the notice was sought to be served, and there was
no occasion to affix the notice on the door of the house. He has
wp1818.17.J.odt 5/5
relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Subhash
Rambhau Doifode and others vs. Additional Commissioner and
others reported in 2008 (6) All MR 270. The proposition of law
laid down in the said decision cannot be disputed. However, the
question in the present case is whether the panchnama done is
worth of acceptance. This Court has already recorded the finding
that the panchnama can not accepted, and hence it has to be held
that the notice of the meeting of no confidence was not served
upon the petitioner. The order passed by the Additional Collector
cannot therefore, be sustained and it will have to be set aside.
6] In the result, writ petition is allowed. The order dated
10.03.2017 passed by the Additional Collector, Akola is hereby
quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be forthwith
reinstated on the post of Sarpanch. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
NSN
