Bombay High Court
Sou. Lata W/O Sandip Goswami vs The Collector, Bhandara And ... on 18 April, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 907-wp 2450.2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2450 OF 2023
( Sou. Lata w/o Sandip Goswami Vs. The Collector, Bhandara and others )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. Harshwardhan Dhumale, Advocate for the Petitioner/s.
Ms. M.A. Barabde, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.
Mr. Bhojraj Dhandale, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 7.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 18th APRIL, 2023
Heard Mr. Harshwardhan Dhumale learned
counsel for the petitioner.
2. Petition challenges order dated 27/03/2023
(page 51) passed by the Collector Bhandara in appeal
challenging the resolution dated 21/02/2023,
disqualifying the petitioner as a 'Sarpanch' of
Grampanchayat Paladi (page 30) whereby the appeal has
been dismissed.
3. Mr.Dhumle, learned counsel for the
petitioner by relying upon Rule 21 to 26 of the Bombay
Village Panchayat (Meetings) Rules, 1959 and the
Judgment of this Court in the case of Manoj
Ghanshyamdas Banode vs. Presiding Officer, 2019 SCC
OnLine Bombay 85 submits, that on account of non-
compliance with the Rules, the entire proceedings of the
KOLHE
2 907-wp 2450.2023.odt
meeting held on 21/02/2023 stand vitiated and
therefore, the resolution disqualifying the petitioner as a
'Sarpanch' as well as the impugned order cannot be
sustained.
4. Perusal of the aforesaid Rules, indicate the
manner in which the meeting is to be conducted for
discussing a motion and mandates, the person against
whom the same has been moved, has to be given an
opportunity to address the meeting and putforth his
views.
5. In the instant matter the copy of the
resolution as placed on record (page 29) categorically
indicates, that the petitioner was present in the meeting
and was granted an opportunity to putforth her views on
the motion and thereafter, a request by her for voting by
secret ballet also came to be accepted, in which the
motion was passed by a majority of 5:1. The minutes of
the resolution clearly indicates, not only a grant of
opportunity to the petitioner, but also a discussion of the
motion, as well as proposing and seconding of the same,
in view of which in my considered opinion the
requirement to Rules 21 to 26 of the aforesaid Rules,
substantially stand complied with.
6. In the case of Manoj Ghanshyam Banode
(supra) relied upon by Mr.Dhumale, learned counsel for
the petitioner, it has been recorded that there was no
material on record as to in what manner the petitioner
KOLHE
3 907-wp 2450.2023.odt
was given an opportunity to make his statement to put
forth his views/explanation in respect of the allegations
and charges levelled against him in the notice of motion
of 'no confidence' before the house and the members of
the Grampanchayat and there was nothing in the
minutes of the meeting to show that the petitioner was
heard before the voting was conducted. In the instant
matter, the minutes of the meeting as placed on record
categorically record, that not only the petitioner was
heard, but her request for secret ballot was also
accepted, in view of which, the reliance on Manoj
Ghanshyam Banode (supra) is misconceived. I therefore
do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order
which has considered the provisions properly.
Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
KOLHE
