Bombay High Court
Venubai Manchakrao Khandagale vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 9 September, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:21507
38-wp-3803-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3803 OF 2023
Venubai Manchakrao Khandagale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector And Others
***
• Mr. U. B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner
• Mr. P. D. Patil, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
and 5/State
• Mr. B. A. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 to 8
and 10 to 12, 14, 15 and 16
***
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J
DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By
consent of the parties, heard finally.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court
challenging the judgment and award passed by the
learned Collector, Parbhani dated 23.03.2023 in
Grampanchayat Dispute No.2023/Sa.Pra/Grapani-2/C.No.06.
Learned Collector by way of impugned judgment and order
has rejected the dispute filed by the present
Petitioner.
Umesh PAGE 1 of 5
38-wp-3803-2023.odt
3. Petitioner came to be elected as a Member of
Grampanchayat, Adgaon (Bazar), Tq. Jintur, Dist.
Parbhani. She also thereafter came to be elected as
Sarpanch of the village. Respondent No. 8 and other
members moved a no confidence motion against the
Petitioner. Pursuant to the motion, a meeting was held
on 20.02.2023 by incharge Tahsildar. In the said
meeting, out of 13 members 11 were present along with
Respondent No. 8. Incharge Tahsildar after putting the
motion for voting held that the motion was passed by
majority of 3/4th. Out of 11 members, all of the
members voted in favour of the motion. The said
proceeding came to be challenged by raising dispute on
three grounds: 1. Respondent No. 8, who was
instrumental in bringing the motion, was on the date
was disqualified to be a member. This Respondent had
contested the election from the post of reserved for
schedule caste. On the date of election she was not
holding certificate. The Government extended the time
to furnish the certificate from time to time. Last such
extension was till 17.01.2022. Notice of motion was
moved on 14.02.2022. On 21.02.2022 show caused notice
Umesh PAGE 2 of 5
38-wp-3803-2023.odt
had published to all the persons who were deemed to
have become disqualified for non submission asking as
to why she could not be declared as disqualified.
Second ground he submits that there is interpolation in
the recording of proceeding of the meeting dated
20.02.2023. The third ground is that the meeting was
not conducted by the Tahsildar but was by incharge
Tahsildar. He thus submits that there is no delegation
of power permitted under the Maharashtra Village
Panchayat Act (for short 'the Act').
4. The learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to
13 vehemently opposed the Petition. He submits that
assuming that Respondent No. 8 was disqualified, even
excluding her name the motion is passed by 11 votes
which comes to 3/4rd majority. As on the date of voting
taking contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent
was disqualified, the persons entitled to sit and vote
were only 12. Thus, out of 12, 9 votes are required to
complete 3/4th majority. About delegation of powers, he
submits that the incharge Tahsildar cannot be said to
the delegative of Tahsildar. The Collector has clearly
Umesh PAGE 3 of 5
38-wp-3803-2023.odt
discussed it and has passed the order. About the
interpolation, he submits that the only right to place
of signature of one member Asha was not at the right
place, that cannot be said to be interpolation.
5. Learned AGP also supports the judgment.
6. This Court has gone through the judgment of
the learned Collector. The Collector had considered
that the Tahsildar who conducted the meeting was
incharge Tahsildar as the Tahsildar was on leave on
that day and, therefore, there is no question of
delegation of power. The meeting itself is held by the
Tahsildar having charge. About the majority, he held
that had there been 13 members entitled to sit and
vote, it is only in that case the majority was 9.75 and
thus, it should have been passed by 10 members. Herein
this case, 11 persons have voted in favour of the
motion. The learned Collector has rightly considered
this aspect considering the original record of the
meeting.
Umesh PAGE 4 of 5
38-wp-3803-2023.odt
7. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner at
this stage relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Valiammal Rangarao Ramachar
vs. Muthukumarswamy Counder, 1982 (3) SCC 508. The said
case arises out of where the interpolation was
established in the very document which give rise to the
suit. In this case, no such interpolation is pointed
out and shown which would affect the proceeding of
motion.
8. Considering all above, this Court does not
find any case made out for interference in the impugned
judgment and award. The Writ Petition, therefore,
stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Rule stands
discharged.
(KISHORE C. SANT, J.)
Umesh PAGE 5 of 5
