1 W.P.No.7861/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7861 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.S.T.Veer, advocate holding for Mr.S.P.Kausalye, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.P.Phatake, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the State. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.10.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is a Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Navarangpur, Taluka Kandhar, Dist.Nanded. A motion of No Confidence was moved by the present Respondent Nos.5 to 10. The meeting was convened. The resolution of No Confidence Motion was passed by 6 members. The total Grampanchayat consist of seven (7) members including the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the Collector. The Collector dismissed the same and upheld the motion of No Confidence. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal before the 2 W.P.No.7861/11 Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Mr.Veer, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the meeting was not held in the office of Village Panchayat. As per Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, the meeting of No Confidence has to be held in the office of the Village Panchayat. So also Rule 6(2) of the Meeting Rules for No Confidence Motion, provide that the meeting shall be held at the office of the Panchayat. In the present case though the notice was issued convening the meeting in the office of Village Panchayat, the meeting was not conducted in the office of the Village Panchayat but was conducted in the office of Anganwadi. The same amounts to an illegality and would vitiate the meeting. The learned counsel contends that if the statute requires a particular act to be gone in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner only. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Haresh Dayaram Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2281 and the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in a case of " Sopan Maruti Thopte and another etc. Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and another" reported in AIR 1996 Bombay 304. According to the learned 3 W.P.No.7861/11 counsel this aspect is not considered by the authorities and thereby has erroneously dismissed the appeal. The learned counsel further contends that the four members have failed to construct latrine in their houses and as such they are disqualified. Even notices are issued to them by the Collector. In view of that they were not entitled to vote. The Motion of No Confidence passed on this count also is illegal. 4. There can not be any dispute in the proposition that if a statute requires a particular act to be gone in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner, otherwise not to be done at all. 5. In the present case, it has come on record that all meetings of Village Panchayats are conducted in the office of Anganwadi. The petitioner also participated in the meeting and all other Rules of No Confidence Meeting were adhered and the Resolution was passed by majority of six to one. Except the petitioner all other members of Panchayat voted in favour of motion. It is clear that the petitioner has lost the confidence of the house. The will of majority will also have to be respected. This Court in a case of "Sindhu Santosh Sawant Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" reported in 2009 (5) Bom. C.R. 825 and in a case of "Sau. Sangeeta W/o Ramesh Ranvir Vs. The Presiding Officer/Tahsildar and others" reported in 1999 (2) Bom.C.R. 213, has held that even if the meeting is not held in the office of 4 W.P.No.7861/11 Village Panchayat, the same would not vitiate the meeting. In the present case, simply because the meeting was not held in the office of Village Panchayat, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner. The petitioner has consciously attended the meeting, participated in it and after the motion of No Confidence having been passed against the petitioner, is now making a grievance about the same. It has also come on record that all meetings of the Village Panchayat are held in the office of Anganwadi. There is nothing to disbelieve the same. 6. As far as other grounds agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that four members would stand disqualified for not having constructed latrines in their houses. The same was not the issue before the authorities. Till date they have not been disqualified. It is only said that notices are issued to them by the Collector. No decision is taken till date against them. In view of that the said argument also can not be considered. 7. In light of the above, no case for interference is made out. As such the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.12.10.2011. asp/office/wp786111 5 W.P.No.7861/11