Bombay High Court
Ganesh Raghunath Samel vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 10 June, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(4)BOMCR425
Bench: Chief Justice, Ranjana Desai
JUDGMENT
1. The petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate direction by quashing and setting aside of the order dated 7th of November, 2001, passed by the Dy. Collector, Raigad- Alibag, Dist. Raigad, respondent 3 herein in Village Panchayat Appeal No. 17 of 2001 and confirmed by the Commissioner on 28th February, 2002.
2. The petitioner was elected as Committee Member of Group Gram panchayat Nizampur, Taluka Mangaon, Dist. Raigad on 23rd of January, 1999. The petitioner contested for the office of Deputy Sarpanch and was elected as Deputy Sarpanch.
3. Respondents 6 to 17 were the members of the said Gram Panchayat. They sent a notice of No Confidence Motion with the Tahsildar, respondent 4 on September 20, 2001.
4. The respondent 2 instead of convening and holding a meeting within seven days, as required by sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), convened a meeting on 29th of September, 2001 i.e. after stipulated period of seven days. In the said meeting, No Confidence Motion was passed against the petitioner by two third majority. Appeals filed against the said action came to be dismissed by the Collector as well as by the Commissioner. Hence, the present petition.
5. Rule was issued and interim relief giving effect to the resolution was granted by the Court. Today the matter has been called for final hearing.
6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner the reading of sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Act makes it clear that meeting for No Confidence Motion must be convened "within seven days" from the date of receipt by the person concerned of the notice under sub-section (1) of the Act. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Tahsildar to convene a meeting within seven days from the receipt of the notice, i.e. within seven days from September 20, 2001. Once the said period of seven days had gone, sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Act cannot be pressed into service as the said period was over. In the case on hand, the meeting was convened on September 29, 2001 which was illegal and contrary to law.
7. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2078 of 2000 Ankush Kushaba Margaje v. State of Maharashtra & ors., decided on 4th of May, 2000.
8. Considering the fact that notice was issued on 16th November, 1999 and the meeting was convened on 30th November, 1999, this Court held that since the meeting was convened after seven days it was not in consonance with the period prescribed by sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Act and hence it was illegal.
9. In Mandabai Balnath Rohom & ors. v. Ashok Fakira Chandar & ors., , the learned Single Judge of this Court again considered almost of a similar case. Following the decision in Ankush Kushaba Margaje, the Court held that since the meeting was convened after seven days, it was not in accordance with law and the action was illegal.
10. In the later case the learned Single Judge also considered a Full Bench decision of this Court on which reliance was placed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 in Chaitram Dagadoo v. Malegaon Panchayat Samiti and ors., 1965 Mh.L.J. 663(F.B.).
11. In the facts and circumstance of the case, in our opinion, when the meeting was convened after stipulated period of seven days, the action of passing 'No Confidence Motion' and all consequential actions in pursuance of the said No Confidence Motion, are required to be quashed and set aside and accordingly they are set aside. It is, however, clarified that appropriate action can be taken in accordance with law.
12. It was stated that since the office had been vacant, in view of passing of No Confidence Motion, an election was also held. Obviously, that action also cannot be held legal; and is hereby set aside.
13. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
14. In view of the order passed in the main matter, no order on Civil Application No. 1073 of 2002.
15. Certified copy expedited.