1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 6137 OF 2008 Vijay s/o. Gulabrao Patil - - - Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others. - - - - Respondents Shri B. R. Warma, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K. G. Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1. Shri D. S. Bagul, Advocate for respondent No.2. Shri S. P. Brahme, Advocate for respondent No.6. Shri Ajay Deshpande, Advocate for respondents No.7 to 24. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 18th August 2009 PER COURT : 1. The petition has twofold challenges. 2. Firstly, the grievance of the petitioner is that validly constituted Development Committee cannot be superseded without following the procedure established by law. 3. The second grievance is that the Committee which is 2 constituted is de hors Section 49 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act".). 4. In so far as first ground is concerned, we find that in view of the provisions of sub section 8 of section 49 of the said Act, the members of the Village Development Committee once appointed shall not be removed or withdrawn before completion of their term as provided in sub section (2) except when by an express resolution passed by the Gram Sabha in a special meeting duly called for the purpose, a resolution to that effect is passed. 5. Affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of respondent No.6 who has stated that a special meeting wherein agenda was for removal of the members earlier appointed was duly held. A notice on public chawdi was also published for that purpose and accordingly in the meeting dated 26-1-2007, it has been resolved to remove earlier members of the Committee. 6. When an affidavit duly sworn on behalf of the Village Development Officer states that a procedure required under the statute has been followed while removing earlier members, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the said statement. In that view of 3 the matter, no error is found with the challenge in so far as the supersession of earlier Committee on which petitioner was Chairman is concerned. 7. In so far as second challenge is concerned, we find that the grievance of the petitioner is just and proper. The constitution of the Committee is provided under sub section 4 which reads thus : 4) The total number of the members in a Village Development Committee shall not be less than twelve and not more than twenty-four. Provided that: (a) not less than one-third of its members shall be from amongst the members of the Panchayat; (b) not less than one-half of its members shall be women; and (c) such number of members, as may be specified by the Government in that behalf, shall be from the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Vimukta-Jatis and Nomadic Tribes (hereinafter referred to as the "vulnerable class"): Provided further that, the strength of the women members of the vulnerable class members on the Village Development Committee shall be not less than three-fourths of the total strength of such 4 committee members, when such committee is constituted for the purpose of an activity, scheme or utility exclusively for the benefit of women or, as the case may be, for the vulnerable class; (d) the Gram Sabha shall ordinarily nominate such women members to the Village Development Committee is recommended by village Mahilla Mandal or a Gram Sabha of the women voters specially called for the purpose, unless it has sufficient reason, to be recorded in the proceedings, to reject any such recommendation; (e) the Gram Sabha, in its discretion, may give preference to the members of the village level institutions, if any, like Mahilla Mandals, Youth Clubs, etc. (f) the Gram Sabha may, also invite any village level Government, semi-Government, Zilla Parishad officials or employees working in the village, such as teachers, talathis, anganwadi sevikas, village water men, village health workers to attend any meeting or meetings of the Village Development Committee, as a special invitee for the purpose of assisting or advising it on any matter or matters. Such special invitee may take part in the deliberations in the meeting but, shall have no right to vote in such meeting. 5 8. Admittedly, in the new Committee the number of members of the Gram Panchayat is less than 1/3rd. It can be further seen that number of women is less than one half, and as such, the Committee which is constituted is de hors provisions of section 8 of section 49. Petition in so far as second challenge is concerned, will have to succeed. The new Committee constituted under the Resolution dated 26-1-2007 compromising of the Respondents Nos.7 to 24 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. Respondent No.6 is directed to convene a meeting of Gram Sabha in accordance with sub section (4) of Section 49 of the said Act within a period of four weeks from today for constitution of new Committee. Needless to state that Committee so constituted shall be as per the requirement as stipulated in sub section (4) of the said Act. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the Committee consisting of respondents Nos.7 to 24 is continuing from 26-1-2007, we direct that the said Committee shall continue to operate till a new Committee is constituted which we have directed to be done within a period of four weeks from today. With this 6 direction, the petition stands disposed of. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp613708