Kalpana Pradip Bhadane vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 884 Bom

                                                                      WP371817.doc


         
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 3718 OF 2017

Sow. Kalpana Pradip Bhadane
Age: 48 years, Occu.: Agri. and Household,
R/o Gondur, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.                          ..PETITIONER

               VERSUS

1.  State of Maharashtra
     Through its Secretary
     Rural Development Department,
     Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai.

2.  The District Collector,
     Dhule.

3.  The Returning Officer and
     Additional Tahsildar,
     Dhule (City), Dhule.

4.  Sakaharam Vithal Patil
     Age: Major, Occu.: Agri.,
     R/o Gondur, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

5.  Sow. Mangalabai Ramdas Patil
     Age: Major, Occu.: Household,
     R/o Gondur, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

6.  Chetan Ashok Patil
     Age: Major, Occu.: Agri.,
     R/o Gondur, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

7.  Sow. Rekha Pramod Patil
     Age: Major, Occu.: Household,
     R/o Gondur, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

8.  Sow. Radhabai Dnyaneshwar Bhil

                                      1   /  4




       ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:26:30 :::
                                                                                  WP371817.doc


     Age: Major, Occu.: Household,
     R/o Gondur, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

9.  Smt. Pitabai Shravan Bhil
     Age: Major, Occu.: Household,
     R/o Gondur, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

10. Sow. Pradnya Ramkrushna Nerkar,
      Age: Major, Occu.: Houehold,
      R/o Gondur, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

11.  Chutu Ambar Bhil
       Age: Major, Occu.: Agri.,
       R/o Gondur, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

12.  Bhimrao Dhansingh Bhil
       Age: Major, Occu.: Agri.,
       R/o Gondur, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

13.  Rajendrar Daga Bhadane
       Age: Major, Occu.: Agri.,
       R/o Gondur, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

14.  Grampanchayat Gondur,
       Tq. & Dist. Dhule
       Through its Gramsevak.                                      ..RESPONDENTS

                                    ....
Mr. N.R. Bhavar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos 1 to 3.
                                    ....

                                                     CORAM :  S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 20th MARCH, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Issue notice for final disposal to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Learned A.G.P. waives service of notice for these respondents. At present,

2 / 4

WP371817.doc

There is no need to issue notice to Respondent Nos.4 to 14, as the objection is

only about not following the procedural requirement, as prescribed in Rule 5 of

the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 (in short as "Rules of

1959") by respondent No.3.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent

of both sides.

3. By no confidence motion passed against the petitioner an Up-

Sarpanch, in the meeting held on 25 th January, 2017 by the Group Gram

Panchayat, Gondur by majority the petitioner incurred disqualification and

therefore, she raised election dispute under Section 35(3-B) of the Maharashtra

Gram Panchayat Act, 1958 before the Collector, Dhule. However, the appeal

came to be dismissed by order passed on 08 th March, 2017. The petitioner is

aggrieved by this order as well as no confidence motion passed in the meeting

on 25th January, 2017 and therefore has preferred this writ petition.

4. Only objection taken by the petitioner is that requirement of Rule

5(2) of the Rules of 1959 has not been adhered by Respondent No.3. As per this

rule, one clear day notice of convening of special meeting for passing of no

confidence motion should be given to all the members including Sarpanch and

Upsarpanch. In the instance case, notice was issued on 23 rd January, 2017 and

3 / 4

WP371817.doc

was received on 24th January, 2017. The special meeting in which no

confidencemotion was passed, was held on 25 th January, 2017. It is clear that

ntoice was received by the petitioner one clear day before holding of special

meeting in terms of Rule 5(2) of the Rules of 1959.

5. It is the contention of learned Counsel for petitioner that the notice

was received at about 04.00 p.m. on 24 th January, 2017 and therefore, it does

not state the requirement of one clear day. The learned A.G.P. submits that

definition of 'clear day' does not indicate that the notice should be received at

least before twenty four hours of the day holding of meeting. On perusal of the

definition of "clear day" as given in Rule 2(a) of the Rules of 1959, the

submission of learned A.G.P. appears to be correct. The expression of clear day

has been defined the day exclusive of the day of issuance of notice or intimation,

or of the day of meeting. This definition does not visualise a clear day in terms

of clock hours but visualise a clear day in terms of only date as per the English

calender. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the said submission.

6. Thus, there is no merit in this petition and the same is liable to be

dismissed with costs. Writ petition stands dismissed with costs. Rule is

discharged.

( S.B. SHUKRE, J. ) SSD

4 / 4