1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 858/2009 (Sou. Usha R. Rindhe Vs. The Addl. Commr. Amravati & ors.) and Writ Petition No. 1105/2009 (Sunil A. Gawai & ors. Vs. The Addl. Commr. Amravati & ors.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.M. Ghare, Advocate, for the petitioner in W.P. No. 858/2009. Mr. L.H.Kothari, Advocate, for the petitioners in W.P. No. 1105/2009. Mr. D.B. Patel, A.G.P. For respondent nos. 1 to 3 in both the cases. Mr. Anand Deshpande, Advocate, for respdt. no.4 in W.P. No. 858/2009. Mr. Kalwaghe, Advocate, for respondent nos. 5 to 17 in W.P. no. 858/09. Mr. R.R. Vyas, Advocate, for the Notary. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 26 , 2009 . Since the issues involved in both these writ petitions are almost identical, they are heard together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, and are decided by this common order. By these petitions, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Additional Collector , Buldana and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, upholding the legality of the No Confidence Motion passed against the petitioner on 19/11/2008. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners by the learned counsel that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 858/2009 and the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1105/2009 who are also respondent nos. 18 to 20 in Writ Petition No. 858/2009, were prevented by the Presiding Officer to enter into the Gram Panchayat 2 office where the special meeting for considering the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 858/2009, was in progress. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner-Sarpanch had raised an objection to the holding of the meeting on the ground that the meeting could not be held within a period of six months from the date of failure of the first No Confidence Motion. On making this grievance, according to the petitioners, the Presiding Officer asked the petitioner- Sarpanch to seek necessary details in regard to the writ petition which was filed by the Sarpanch before the High Court to challenge the holding of the special meeting for considering the No Confidence Motion on 19/11/2008. It is the case of the petitioners that when the petitioner-Sarpanch, after seeking necessary instructions about the status of the writ petition filed by her, returned to the office of the Village Panchayat where the meeting was being conducted, within 13 to 15 minutes, she found that no Gram Panchayat Member was present and it was informed to her by the three petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1105/2009 that the meeting actually did not take place, no confidence motion was not passed, that they were prevented from attending the meeting and a farce was made that the No Confidence Motion was actually passed against the petitioner- Sarpanch. The respondent nos. 18 to 20 in Writ Petition No. 858/2009, therefore, lodged a complaint in respect of the action of the Presiding Officer 3 in preventing them from attending the meeting. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that these facts were stated by the petitioner in appeal before the Additional Collector and they have not been specifically denied by the Presiding Officer and hence it is clear that the petitioner as well as the respondent nos. 18 to 20 to Writ Petition No. 858/2009, were prevented from attending the meeting. In such circumstances, the petitioners have challenged the No Confidence Motion dated 18/11/2008 as also the order passed by the appellate authority, upholding the No Confidence Motion. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the division bench of this Court, reported in 2000 (4) Mh.L.J. 197 to substantiate his submission that denial of right to address the members would be a fundamental flaw in the proceedings which would result in invalidating the resolution of no confidence. Shri D.B. Patel, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3, supported the order passed by the authorities as also the no confidence motion passed against the Sarpanch. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 that the Presiding Officer had denied the allegations levelled by the Sarpanch in the appeal memo. The authorities had weighed the evidence tendered by the petitioner-Sarpanch and the respondent 4 nos. 18 to 20 in Writ Petition No. 858/2009, against the evidence which was tendered by the other parties on record, to hold that the petitioner or the respondent nos. 18 to 20 to Writ Petition No. 858/2009 were not prevented from attending the special meeting. The learned Assistant Government Pleader sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. Shri Anand Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent no.4- Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, also supported the impugned orders and submitted that the Secretary had produced the relevant records before the authorities to show that the meeting was conducted in a proper manner and in accordance with the Rules and regulations. The learned counsel for the respondent no.4 also sought for the dismissal of the petitions. Shri Kalwaghe, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 to 17 to Writ Petition No. 858/2009, also supported the impugned orders and sought for the dismissal of the writ petitions. According to the learned counsel, the findings recorded by both the authorities are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the entire record which was produced before the authorities and hence, they may not be interfered with in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the impugned orders as also the memorandum of appeal which was filed before 5 the Additional Collector by the Petitioner-Sarpanch and the replies filed by the respondents thereto. Though it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent-Presiding Officer had not specifically traversed the allegations made against the Presiding Officer, it is necessary to note that the Presiding Officer has denied the fact that the meeting was not conducted on 19/11/2008, according to the provisions of law. It is categorically pleaded in the reply that nobody was prevented from attending the meeting by the Presiding Officer or anybody else. In fact, it is submitted in the reply that there was proper Police protection and entries were given to all the members of the Gram Panchayat. It is then submitted in the reply that the signatures of all the members were obtained on the Attendance Register and no confidence motion was passed as per the rules and regulations. It is in this background that the record was perused by the Additional Collector, Buldana, to disbelieve the case of the petitioner-Sarpanch and the respondent nos. 18 to 20 to Writ Petition No. 858/2009, who supported the Sarpanch. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner-Sarpanch that the denial to the Sarpanch to address the meeting would be a fundamental flaw in the proceedings invalidating the resolution of no confidence, would not be applicable to the facts of this case as the authorities have found that neither the Sarpanch nor the other three persons who supported the Sarpanch were prevented from attending 6 the meeting. Once that finding is recorded, there is no question of the petitioner- Sarpanch or the respondent nos. 18 to 20, addressing the members in the meeting as they had not attended the meeting though they were not prevented from attending the same. The judgment reported in 2000 (4) Mh. L. J. 197 and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would not be applicable to the facts of the case. It is necessary to note that the no confidence motion was earlier passed against the petitioner- Sarpanch, but the same resolution was invalidated on a technical ground. By the present resolution a no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner- Sarpanch by 13 members. Out of 17 members of the Gram Panchayat, 13 members were present in the meeting. Though the petitioner and the other three members who had not attended the meeting, had raised a plea that they were prevented from attending the meeting, the said plea was rightly negatived by both the authorities. In such circumstances, all the members present in the meeting had voted against the petitioner- Sarpanch and in these circumstances, it was necessary for the petitioner to walk-out gracefully rather than to challenge the resolution of no confidence on a ground which was negatived by both the authorities. Since the findings recorded by both the authorities are pure findings of facts, the orders passed by the authorities cannot be interfered with in exercise of 7 the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. For the reasons aforesaid, the petitions fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP