KJ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2944 OF 2010 Shri Nagnath Subhash Rampure ..Petitioner Vs. Eranna Dhulappa Malge & Ors. ..Respondents ­­­­ Mr.Surel S.Shah for the petitioner. Mr.P.B.Shah i/by D.D.Rananaware for the respondent nos.1 to 7. Mr.Suresh Bhosale AGP for the respondent nos.8, 10 to 12. ­­­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J DATE : 25/8/2010 P. C.: 1 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 7 and learned AGP for the respondent nos.8, 10 to 12. 2 The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. The respondent nos.1 to 7 moved motion of no confidence against the petitioner. A meeting of the village panchayat was held on 30.12.2005. On that day, out of 9 members of the village panchayat, it is stated that the petitioner and one more member KJ 2 were not present and remaining 7 members voted in favour of no confidence motion. A dispute was raised by the petitioner by filing an application before the Collector under the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). After hearing the appellant the said application was rejected by the learned Additional Collector and no confidence motion passed against the petitioner was held as valid. A statutory appeal was preferred by the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner. The aforesaid two orders have been impugned by the petitioner in this petition. 3 Learned Advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the no confidence motion allegedly passed in the meeting. He pointed out that the grounds on which no confidence motion was moved and was purportedly passed have not been incorporated in the resolution. He has relied upon an un­reported decision of this Court in the case of Laxman son of Nathuji Dhomne Vs. Gram Panchayat, Mangaladevi in Special Civil Application No.300 of 1965. Relying upon the said decision of the KJ 3 Division Bench, he submitted that the no confidence motion does not indicate that it was founded on one or more grounds mentioned in the notice served to the petitioner. He submitted that as the resolution does not refer to any ground at all, the so called no confidence motion is completely illegal as it is not founded on any of the grounds mentioned in the notice. Learned Advocate further pointed out that a specific case was made out before the Collector by the petitioner that the petitioner was prevented from entering the place where meeting was scheduled to be held and therefore, the petitioner could not get an opportunity to deal with the allegations made against him. He submitted that the said contention has not been dealt with by the learned Additional Collector. 4 I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the impugned orders. Perusal of paragraph­2 of the judgment of the Additional Collector shows that he has considered the 2nd ground urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Learned Additional Collector observed that there is no material on record KJ 4 to show that any police complaint was filed by the petitioner or any complaint was filed by the petitioner with the Tahsildar as regards the allegation that his entry to the place of meeting was obstructed or prohibited. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said contention has not been dealt with by the Collector. It is pertinent to note that in the application made by the petitioner before the Collector and in particular in paragraph­7, the petitioner has contended that on 30.12.2009 he was not allowed to express his views and no inquiry was held. He has specifically alleged that though he was present, he was shown as absent and the resolution was unilaterally shown to have been passed. Thus in this paragraph inconsistent case was made out by the petitioner. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that he was prevented from attending the meeting. 5 As far as first contention is concerned, learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the following observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Laxman (supra) “that the resolution of no­confidence which could be passed at a meeting KJ 5 must be founded on one or more grounds incorporated in the notice given to the concerned members.” 6 Perusal of the application made by the petitioner before the Collector shows that it is not the case of the petitioner that the no confidence motion which was served to the petitioner was not moved or that some other motion was moved. On the contrary, perusal of the application shows that in the meeting held on 30.12.2009, the no confidence motion served to the petitioner was considered by the meeting. In the requisition of no confidence, the grounds have been set out. It is not the case of the petitioner that some other grounds which are not part of the grounds incorporated in the said notice, were considered. 7 Therefore, in the present case, it cannot be said that no confidence motion is not founded on one or more grounds mentioned in the notice. The decision of the Division Bench cannot be read to mean that even the resolution passed on the notice of no confidence must contain the grounds in the motion. KJ 6 The law does not prescribe any format of the resolution which is normally required to be passed. The fact that there is no specific reference to the grounds in the resolution by itself is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the resolution of no confidence passed in the meeting is not founded on any one of the grounds mentioned in the notice. In the facts of the case, considering the challenge by the petitioner in the application before the Collector, it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the resolution was not founded on any ground mentioned in the notice served to the petitioner. 8 Lastly, learned Advocate for the petitioner tried to submit that a letter dated 15.3.2010 was submitted by the Tahsildar to the Divisional Commissioner in which he admitted that he did not make endorsement on the motion of no confidence that he has verified the signatures thereon. This application did not make the resolution of no confidence illegal which has been passed by support of 7 members out of total 9 members. KJ 7 9 In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition. There is no illegality in the resolution of no confidence. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. On the prayer made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, ad­interim relief granted earlier, will continue to operate for a period of four weeks from today. (JUDGE)