The Single Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Justice Smt. Bharati H. Dangre opined that a provision must be read as it is and it is not permitted for the Court to add or delete any words and even when it result in any harsh consequences, for which the remedy shall be sought and worked out by the legislature.
Facts
The petitioner, a directly elected Sarpanch, of village Panchayat Dhamandari, was aggrieved by her removal from the said post in the wake of no confidence motion passed in special meeting of the Gram Panchayat and its ratification in special Gram Sabha and the order passed by the Collector, declaring her to be disqualified to hold the post of Sarpanch.
Observations of the Court
The Bench, while perusing the four contentions made on behalf of the appellant, observed that:
“The no confidence motion passed in the Special Gram Sabha is passed only by simple majority and not by 3/4th majority is the first contention of Mr. Deshmukh. The said contention do not warrant any merit in the wake of the amended provision of section 35(1A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (‘the Act’).”
“The second ground is to the effect that the notice of the special meeting of the Gram Panchayat was issued by the Tahsildar on 4.5.2021, and the meeting was convened on 11.5.2021 in which the no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner, Sarpanch. The learned counsel would submit that u/s 35(2) within seven days from the receipt of notice/requisition for the motion of no confidence, by the Tahsildar, he shall convene a special meeting of the Panchayat for considering the motion of no confidence, at the office of Panchayat, at the time appointed and he shall preside over such meeting. The submission advanced is, from 4.5.2021 to 11.5.2021 the period of seven clear days has not passed. Even this argument of the learned counsel does not hold any merit, since the meeting of the Village Panchayat are governed by the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules 1959 and the meeting in which no confidence motion is to be taken for consideration, shall be a special meeting, since u/s 35 (2) of the Act Tahsildar had to convene a special meeting to consider the motion of no confidence.”
“Another flaw pointed out was that after no confidence motion is passed before the Tahsildar within seven days, he shall convene the meeting of the Special Gram Sabha. It is worth to note that no such timeline has been provided u/s 35(3), as substituted by sub (1A) in respect of Directly elected Sarpanch.”
“The last contention is that the procedure given under Rule 6 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Gram Sabha Meetings) Rules, 1959 was not followed. In absence of any material on record to demonstrate that there was no procedure followed as prescribed under Rule 6 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Gram Sabha Meetings) Rules 1959 even this argument deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.”
Judgment
The writ petition was dismissed.
Case Name: Jijabai Parasram Aatram vs The Collector & Ors
Citation: WRIT PETITION NO. 11708 OF 2021
Bench: Justice Smt. Bharati H. Dangre
Decided on: 10th February 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com z
Picture Source :
