Bombay High Court
Ajinath Sampat Kadam vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 2 November, 2018
Author: V.K. Jadhav
Bench: S. S. Shinde, V. K. Jadhav, P. R. Bora
WP-5418-2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5418 OF 2013
Ajinath S/o Sampat Kadam,
Age 43 Years, Occupation Agriculturist
and Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat,
Kahnobachi Wadi, Tq. Shirur (Kasar),
R/o Kahnobachi Wadi, Tq. Shirur (Kasar),
District Beed. ...Petitioner
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through Additional Collector,
Beed.
2. The Tahsildar, Shirur (Kasar),
District Beed.
3. Bhimrao S/o Raghunath More,
Age : 55 years,
Occu. Gram Panchayat Member,
R/o Kahnobachi Wadi, Tq. Shirur (Kasar),
District Beed.
4. Vimal S/o Mahadeo Sawase,
Age : 50 years,
Occu. Gram Panchayat Member,
R/o Kahnobachi Wadi, Tq. Shirur (Kasar),
District Beed.
5. Natha Bhaurao More,
Age : 42 years,
Occu. Gram Panchayat Member,
R/o Kahnobachi Wadi, Tq. Shirur (Kasar),
District Beed.
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:40 :::
WP-5418-2013
-2-
6. Prameela W/o Bhimrao More,
Age : 49 years,
Occu. Gram Panchayat Member,
R/o Kahnobachi Wadi, Tq. Shirur (Kasar),
District Beed.
7. Bhagubai W/o Jagannath Khamkar,
Age : 51 years,
Occu. Gram Panchayat Member,
R/o Kahnobachi Wadi, Tq. Shirur (Kasar),
District Beed.
8. Ashraji S/o Chimaji Kadam,
Age : 36 years,
Occu. Gram Panchayat Member,
R/o Kahnobachi Wadi, Tq. Shirur (Kasar),
District Beed. ...Respondents
.....
Mr. R. G. Hange, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. M. A. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. R. P. Dhase, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 7.
Respondent No. 8 served.
.....
CORAM : S. S. SHINDE,
V. K. JADHAV AND
P. R. BORA, JJJ
RESERVED ON : 27th JULY, 2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 02nd NOVEMBER, 2018
JUDGMENT (PER V.K. JADHAV, J.) :-
1. The issue referred for consideration of the Full Bench is recorded below :
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:40 :::WP-5418-2013 -3- " Whether the Meeting Rules and in particular, Rules 17 to 26, are mandatory, and violation to apply these Rules to a meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence, vitiates the entire proceedings of the special meeting as also the resolution passed therein?"
2. The learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram :
R.G.Ketkar, J.), noticing conflict of views on the issue by the two Single Judges of this Court in the matter of Vijay Ramchandra Katkar vs Group Grampanchayat, Pali & anr. 1, (Coram :
R.C.Chavan, J.) and in the batch of writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition No. 167 of 2011 and others, decided on 26 th July, 2011 (Coram : S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.), so also the view taken on the above issue by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vishnu Ramchandra Patil vs Group Gram Panchayat, Kharivli and Ors.2, has framed the question as above for consideration and papers and proceedings were directed to be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in accordance with Rule 7 Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. The Honourable the Chief Justice has directed placement of the
1. 2010 (4) Mh.L.J. 497
2. 2013 (3) Mh.L.J. 133 ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:40 ::: WP-5418-2013 -4- matter before us for consideration and decision on the issue.
3. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 27th June, 2013 passed by Additional Collector, Beed in the dispute preferred by the petitioner under Section 35(3B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (for short "the Act"). By that order, the Additional Collector has dismissed the said dispute and held that the proceedings of special meeting held on 14th May, 2013 are valid and that the resolution of no confidence moved against the petitioner was carried in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 (for short "No Confidence Motion Rules").
4. The facts in the nutshell giving rise to the dispute can be stated briefly thus :
The petitioner is elected as Sarpanch of village Grampanchayat, Kahnobachi Wadi, Taluka Shirur (Kasar), District Beed (for short "panchayat"). Respondent Nos. 3 to 8 are elected members of the said Panchayat. There are in all seven members in the said panchayat. On 9th May, 2013, respondent ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:40 ::: WP-5418-2013 -5- nos. 3 to 8 moved a requisition of motion of no confidence against the petitioner before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar convened a special meeting on 14th May, 2013 for considering the motion of no confidence. On 14 th May, 2013, the meeting was presided over by the Tahsildar. In that meeting, motion of no confidence was carried against the petitioner Sarpanch by passing resolution by requisite majority. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred dispute before the Additional Collector, Beed and as noted above, the Additional Collector, Beed, has dismissed the said dispute by the impugned order.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the meeting for considering the motion of no confidence is concerned, provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 (for short "Meeting Rules") are applicable to it. Under Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules, a member who has given notice of a motion shall, when called on, either
(a) state that he does not wish to move the motion, or (b) move the motion in which case he shall commence his speech by a formal motion in the terms appearing on the list of business, after the motion is duly seconded. Under Rule 18 of the Meeting ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:40 ::: WP-5418-2013 -6- Rules, after a motion has been moved and seconded, the person presiding shall propose the question by reading the motion for the consideration of the panchayat. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the motion has to be in writing. In the instant case, in the first place, the motion was not moved. He submits that assuming that the motion was moved by one of the members, namely, Natha s/o Bhaurao More (respondent no.5 herein), the same was not in writing. Secondly, Rules 17 and 18 of the Meeting Rules are mandatory and in the present case, failure to comply these provisions has vitiated the proceedings of the meeting as also the resolution passed therein. He submits that a request for vote by secret ballot was made by the petitioner, however his request was also turned down and as such, the principles of natural justice were also given a go by.
6. The learned counsel further submits that the provisions of Meeting Rules were not followed by the respondent Tahsildar while conducting the meeting dated 14 th May, 2013. Minutes of the said meeting does not disclose that any no confidence motion was moved or that any member had proposed no confidence motion against the petitioner and it was seconded by any other ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:40 ::: WP-5418-2013 -7- Panchayat member. The letter, which was given by the respondent members to the Tahsildar for conducting meeting, was only read over in the said meeting and no separate motion in writing was moved. Moreover, no discussion on the motion of no confidence took place and no opportunity was extended to the petitioner to speak anything. However, taking undue advantage of illiteracy of the petitioner, all the proceedings were written to that effect and petitioner's signature was obtained on the resolution. Thus, the learned counsel submits that, the mandatory provisions of the Meeting Rules have not been followed while conducting the meeting dated 14 th May, 2013 for consideration of motion of no confidence against the petitioner and non adherence to the same has vitiated the entire proceedings of the so called special meeting as also the resolution passed therein.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Vishnu Ramchandra Patil vs Group Gram Panchayat, Kharivli and Ors., reported in 2013 (3) Mh.L.J. 133 and also on the judgment on the Full Bench in the case of Viswas Pandurang Mokal vs Group Gram ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:40 ::: WP-5418-2013 -8- Panchayat Shihu & Ors., reported in 2011 (3) Bom.C.R. 495.
Learned counsel submits that the Full Bench of this Court in the Case of Viswas Pandurang Mokal (supra) has held that the Meeting Rules would be applicable, including Rule 17, and there should have been strict compliance of the said Rules. Failing therein, the proceedings of the meeting for consideration of the motion of no confidence would stand vitiated.
8. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 7 submits that the reference to the Full Bench in Viswas Pandurang Mokal's case (supra) is only as regards the applicability of the Meeting Rules and the Full Bench has specifically observed that whether the Rule is directory or mandatory was not before it for consideration. Thus, the reliance placed on the Full Bench judgment in Viswas Pandurang Mokal's case (supra) so as to substantiate the contention that Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules is mandatory, is misplaced. Learned counsel submits that in the case of Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale vs Navnath Tukaram Kakde and Others, reported in 2014 (6) Mh.L.J. 804 a similar issue was formulated by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: A.S.Oka & S.C.Gupte, JJ.) and referred to the Full ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:40 ::: WP-5418-2013 -9- Bench and the Full Bench has answered the reference in the manner that the requirement of Rule 17 in the matter of proposing and seconding the motion cannot impinge upon the validity of the motion of no confidence which has otherwise been passed by fulfilling the requirement of section 35(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
9. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 7 submits that thus, the question is no more res integra and the same has been answered by the Full Bench in the case of Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale (supra).
10. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 7 has placed reliance on the following cases :
1. Chandrakala w/o Vaijanathrao Ghatul vs Kathalu s/o Maroti Hatagale & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) All MR 758,
2. Shri. Vinod Natha Bhagat vs Returning Officer, Nimdari & Ors., reported in 2005 (3) ALL MR 656,
3. Sanjay Pandurang Chavan & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2003 (4) All MR 242,
4. Ramkrishna s/o Tukaram Patil and Ors. vs ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:40 ::: WP-5418-2013 -10- State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2012(6) Mh.L.J. 948 and
5. Shaikh Salim Pasha Khaja Pasha vs Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad & Ors., reported in 2012 (4) ALL MR 891.
11. In the case of Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale (supra), the Division Bench (Coram: A.S.Oka & S.C.Gupte, JJ.) has expressed disagreement with the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court (Coram: A.M.Khanwilkar & K.K.Tated, JJ.) in the case of Vishnu Ramchandra Patil (supra). The Division Bench of this Court (Coram: A.S.Oka & S.C.Gupte, JJ.), in the aforesaid case of Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale, considered the relevant statutory provisions of the Act of 1958, the Meeting Rules, the No Confidence Motion Rules and also the case laws cited before them and observed that it was not possible for them to agree with the interpretation of Rule 17 as propounded by the Division Bench in Vishnu Ramchandra Patil's case (supra). In this context, the observations of the Division Bench (Coram: A.S.Oka & S.C.Gupte, JJ.) in paragraph nos. 20, 23, 24 and 25 are necessary to be reproduced herein below:
"20 We are afraid we are unable to subscribe to the ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:40 ::: WP-5418-2013 -11- above reasoning or persuade ourselves to come to the conclusions arrived at by the learned Division Bench in the case of Vishnu Ramchandra Patil (supra). In the first place, we have not come across any judgment which holds that Rule 17 is mandatory for the purpose of all other motions (i.e. other than a no confidence motion). That is the major premise of the Division Bench judgment. There is no support of authority for that premise. Even the other proposition in the reasoning of the Division Bench (namely, that the issue regarding the mandatory or directory nature of Rule 17 has already been answered by the Full Bench) runs, with utmost respect, counter to the dictum of the Full Bench in Vishwas Pandurang Mokal (Supra). What the Full Bench held was, the question, as to the consequence of non-compliance with any Rule, will have to be decided in each case after considering the nature of the provision. Besides, in particular reference to the mandatory or directory nature of Rule 17 itself or the consequence of non-compliance therewith on the validity or otherwise of a no confidence motion, the Full Bench in terms observed that it was not deciding that question, since the same was not referred to it.
21......
22......
23. Going by these indices, the basic object of the Act may now be seen. The object is to establish village panchayats for any village or group of villages and invest them with such powers and authority as may be necessary ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:40 ::: WP-5418-2013 -12- to enable them to function as units of local self-
government. These units are expected to function democratically and within the framework of the Act. Sub- section (3) of Section 44 of the Act provides as follows:
"44(3) No act or proceedings of a Panchayat shall be deemed to be invalid on account of any defect or irregularity in any such act or proceeding not affecting the merits of the case or on account of any irregularity in the service of notice upon any member or for mere informality."
One must now have regard to the special position of the Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch of a panchayat. Under Section 38 of the Act, the executive power, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and resolutions passed by a Panchayat, vests in the Sarpanch who shall be directly responsible for the due fulfillment of the duties imposed upon the Panchayat by or under the Act. In the absence of the Sarpanch, the powers and duties of the Sarpanch shall, save as may be otherwise prescribed by rules, be exercised and performed by the Upa-sarpanch. Consistent with this pre-eminent position of the Sarpanch and the Upa-sarpanch vis-a-vis the Panchayat, the Act makes special provisions for (1) election of Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch, (2) resignation by Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch and (3) vacation of the office of the Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch by motion of no confidence passed by the Panchayat. The motion of no confidence must be passed by a requisite majority. If the ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:40 ::: WP-5418-2013 -13- motion is so passed, the Sarpanch or Upa-sarpanch, as the case may be, subject to other safeguards such as upholding the validity of the motion by the Collector and the Commissioner, shall be deemed to have vacated his office. The main idea behind the nature and design of the statute seems to be the electoral legitimacy of the office of the Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch. If the elected Sarpanch or Upa- sarpanch has lost confidence of two third majority of the house of the Panchayat, he shall be deemed to have vacated his office. The whole object of this legislation will be defected if it is held that by reason of a formal defect, namely, though a motion of no confidence is carried by two third majority, member/s proposing the motion not formally moving or seconding it, as required by Rule 17, would render the motion invalid, defeating the will of the majority, and thereby the very object of the legislation.
24 There is one more aspect which must bear on the subject. Perusal of Section 35 shows that the meeting held thereunder is a special meeting, which is, unlike any other meeting, not presided over by the Sarpanch or Upa- sarpanch or any other member in their absence. It is presided over by the Tahsildar. The only purpose of that meeting is to consider the no confidence motion. The statute only lays stress on the carrying of the motion by a requisite majority. On the other hand, Rule 17 is part of sub-ordinate legislation and cannot be so interpreted as to negate the legislative intent of the principal legislation.
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:40 :::WP-5418-2013 -14-
25. There is yet another important consideration. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Narasimhaih (supra), the question whether the violation of the provision or irregularity prejudicially affected the proceedings has an important bearing on the subject. As in the case of K. Narasimhaih (supra), even in our case there is an express provision (Section 44(3) of the Act quoted above) to the effect that no act or proceedings shall be invalid on account of any defect or irregularity not affecting the merits of the case. Can it be said that in the present case, the defect or irregularity affects the merits of the case? Are the proceedings of the meeting, which carried the motion by the requisite majority, prejudicially affected by the irregularity complained of? The answer must be a resounding no. The meeting of the Panchayat was attended by all members. All 13 members, who had given the notice of the no confidence motion, were present in the meeting. In their presence, the motion was proposed for voting by the presiding officer of the meeting. Everyone including the Sarpanch, against whom the motion was proposed, was allowed to freely participate in the meeting. A free and fair voting took place and the motion was carried by not less than two third majority. Failure to formally move and second the motion can hardly be said to prejudice anyone or affect the legitimacy of the whole exercise."
12. The Division Bench (Coram: A.S.Oka & S.C. Gupte, JJ.), thereafter in paragraph 27 of the judgment, has framed the ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:40 ::: WP-5418-2013 -15- following issue:
"27. For all these reasons, we are in respectful disagreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in the case of Vishnu Ramchandra Patil (Supra). In view of our disagreement, we frame the following issue to be referred to a larger bench:
"Whether failure to formally move and second a motion of no confidence as required by Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rule, 1959 would render the motion of no confidence carried by the requisite majority under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, invalid?"
13. In the case of Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale (supra), the Full Bench of this Court (Mohit S. Shah, C.J., R.M. Savant and M.S. Sonak, JJ.) has in paragraph 21 of the judgment, answered the reference as below:
"21. Finally to put the matter in perspective, the requirement of Rule 17 in the matter of proposing and seconding the motion cannot impinge upon the validity of the motion of no confidence which has otherwise been passed by fulfilling the requirement of section 35(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The infraction that ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:40 ::: WP-5418-2013 -16- has occurred on account of the motion not being formally proposed and seconded cannot invalidate the motion if the same has been passed by fulfilling the requirements of section 35(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, as the said infraction does not affect the merits of the case. Hence we hold that Rule 17 is directory, and the test laid down in section 44(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act namely whether the defect affects the merits of the case, would have to be applied, if a challenge is raised to such a motion. We accordingly answer the reference and remit the matter back to the Division Bench for the above Letters Patent Appeal being decided on merits."
14. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge has formulated almost the same question for referring to the larger Bench which is as follows :
"(i) Whether the Meeting Rules and in particular, Rules 17 to 26, are mandatory, and violation to apply these Rules to a meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence, vitiates the entire proceedings of the special meeting as also the resolution passed therein?"
15. Before answering the question as referred to this Full Bench, the same issue has been already referred to the Full Bench at the Principal Seat in the case of Tatyasaheb ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:40 ::: WP-5418-2013 -17- Ramchandra Kale (supra) and the Full Bench as answered it as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs.
16. Thus, the question is no more res integra. However, in the instant matter, in addition to Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules, reference has also been made as to Rules 18 to 26 of the Meeting Rules, whether those are mandatory and violation to apply those rules to a meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence, vitiates the entire proceedings of the special meeting as also the resolution passed therein.
17. It is therefore necessary to reproduce herein below Rules 17 to 26 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959:
"17. (1) A member who has given notice of a motion shall, when called on, either,-
(a) State that he does not wish to move the motion, or
(b) move the motion in which case he shall commence his speech by a formal motion in the terms appearing on the list of business, after the motion is duly seconded. (2) If a member when called is absent, any other member may, with the permission of the person presiding, move the motion standing in the name of the absent member. if permission is not granted to the other member to move the motion, the motion shall lapse.
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:41 :::
WP-5418-2013 -18-
18. After a motion has been moved and seconded the person presiding shall propose the question by reading the motion for the consideration of the panchayat.
19. After a motion has been moved and seconded it shall not be withdrawn or altered in substance, except with the consent of the member who seconded it.
20. (1) After a motion has been proposed and seconded any, member may propose an amendment thereto. (2) Every amendment must be relevant to, and within the scope of, the motion to which it relates.
(3) No amendment shall be moved which has merely the effect of a negative vote.
(3-A) (a) An amendment to an amendment may be moved with the permission of the person presiding.
(b) When an amendment to an amendment is moved, the amendment sought to be amended shall, so long as the amendment by which it is sought to be amended is under discussion, be deemed to be the substantive motion before the meeting.
(4) An amendment in the alternative shall not be moved. (5) Any number of amendments may be moved to the same motion but no member shall move more than one amendment to the same motion.
(6) The person presiding may disallow any amendment which is, in his opinion, irrelevant or frivolous.
21. (1) A member desiring to propose and discuss any motion shall rise in his seat when speaking and address his speech to the person presiding :
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:41 :::WP-5418-2013 -19- Provided that the person presiding may, at the commencement of the meeting, declare that the business of the meeting shall be transacted sitting or may be permit any member to address the meeting sitting.
(2) A member shall confine his speech strictly to the question before the meeting and shall cease to make remarks which are held by the person presiding to be irrelevant or offensive.
(3) Members shall not talk among themselves in the meeting so as to disturb the proceedings or a member who is speaking.
22. (1) The person presiding may address the meeting at any stage of a debate (2) The person presiding shall rise in his seat while addressing the meeting.
23. After a motion has been placed before the meeting for consideration under Rule 18, the mover may speak in support of the motion and the seconder may either follow or reserve his speech for a later stage of the debate thereon.
24. The mover, or if the mover waives his right, the seconder, of a substantive motion may reply at the conclusion of the debate thereon but no other member shall, without the express permission of the person presiding, speak more than once on the same motion, except, for the purpose of making a personal explanation but in such cases, no debatable matter shall be brought forward.
25. The person may fix a reasonable time-limit within which the mover, the seconder and any member shall end his ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:41 ::: WP-5418-2013 -20- speech.
26. (1) On the conclusion of a debate on a motion or where the person presiding is satisfied that the motion has been sufficiently discussed, he may put the motion to the vote of the meeting without further discussion. (2) The votes shall be taken in the following manner :-
(a) when there is only one amendment to the motion,-
(i) the amendment shall first be put to vote:
(ii) if the amendment is lost, the motion shall then be put to vote; or
(iii) if the amendment is carried, the amended motion shall be put to vote;
(b) when there are more than one amendments,-
(i) the amendments shall first be put to vote one after another in such order as the person presiding may decide;
(ii) if all the amendments are lost, the motion shall then be put to vote;
(iii) if all or any of the amendments are carried, the amended motion shall be put to vote"
18. So far as Rule 17 is concerned, the Full Bench in Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale's case (supra) has finally put the matter in perspective and answered the reference to the effect that the requirement of Rule 17 in the matter of proposing and seconding the motion cannot impinge upon the validity of the motion of no confidence which has otherwise been passed by ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:41 ::: WP-5418-2013 -21- fulfilling the requirement of section 35(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. Rules 18 to 26 are in sequel to Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules. Thus, the same answer to the reference as above would be applicable to Rules 18 to 26 which prescribe the procedure to the events happened in terms of provisions of Rule
17. Hence, we hold that Rules 18 to 26 are also directory in nature in tune with the reference answered by the Full Bench of the Principal Seat in Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale's case (supra) and the test laid down in Section 44(3) of the Act of 1958 would have to be applied, if a challenge is raised to such a motion in terms of Rules 18 to 26. We accordingly answer the reference and remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge for deciding Writ Petition No. 5418 of 2013 on merits.
( S. S. SHINDE, J. ) (V. K. JADHAV, J.) (P.R. BORA, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:41 ::: WP-5418-2013 -22- vre/ ::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2018 01:59:41 :::