SSK/ 1 WP/7133.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7133 OF 2011 Bayaji Namdev Padolkar ....Petitioner Versus Tanaji Murlidhar Padolkar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 30th August, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Patne, learned AGP for the respondents. 2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings of No Confidence Motion under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short “the Act”). The Gram Panchayat of Village – Amrutwadi consists of 7 members. The petitioner was initially elected as member and subsequently as Sarpanch of the said Village Panchayat. However, 5 members of the panchayat gave requisition on 19th May, 2011 to the Tahasildar for convening a special meeting to discuss the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. The Tahasildar thereafter by issuing notice on the same day SSK/ 2 WP/7133.11 convened a special meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 24th May, 2011.. The petitioner participated in the special meeting. However, No Confidence Motion was carried by 5 : 2 members i.e. two-third majority. The petitioner disputed the validity and legality of the special meeting as well as the No Confidence Motion by filing dispute application before the Collector. This application was dismissed, and thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 35(3)(c) of the said Act. The said appeal was also dismissed, and therefore, the present petition. 3. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the No Confidence Motion on the ground that mandatory procedure has not been followed. He submitted that the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959 are applicable to No Confidence Motion and in terms of these Rules, the motion of No Confidence was required to be proposed and seconded. However, the motion was not proposed or seconded, and therefore, same is illegal. The submission is without merit, inasmuch as the requirement of proposer and of the seconder under the said Rules is not mandatory and same is held to be directory. A reference can be made to the judgment of a learned Single Judge passed on 26th July, 2011 in Writ Petition No.167 of 2011 (Vishnu R.Patil versus Group Gram Panchayat, Khairvali & Ors.). The petitioner has lost confidence of the majority. In democracy, the will of the majority is required to be SSK/ 3 WP/7133.11 respected. Otherwise also, the post which fell vacant in view of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner is filled by holding fresh election. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.) SSK/ 4 WP/7133.11 a learned Single Judge of this Court in judgment passed on 26th July, 2011 in Writ Petition No.167 of 2011 (Vishnu R.Patil versus Group Gram Panchayat, Khairvali & Ors.) has held that the provisions of Rule 70 viz. Resolution is required to be proposed and seconded is not mandatory so far as Motion of No Confidence is concerned. 2. The writ petition arises out of provisions of Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Grampanchayat of Village – Kumbhari consists of 11 members. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the said Village Panchayat. However, one-third members of the panchayat gave requisition on 25th April, 2011 to the Tahasildar for calling meeting to discuss the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. The Tahasildar thereafter by issuing notice dated 25th April, 2011 i.e. same day, convened a special meeting of the grampanchayat on 30th April, 2011. This meeting was attended by ten members. The petitioner remained absent despite notice. No Confidence Motion, however, was passed unanimously. 3. The petitioner disputed the validity of the No Confidence Motion as well as the special meeting by filing dispute application before the Collector under Section 35(3-B) of the said Act. The said application was SSK/ 5 WP/7133.11 dismissed. The petitioner’s appeal before the Divisional Commissioner was also dismissed, and therefore, the present petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the validity of the No Confidence Motion on the ground that notice of the special meeting was not served upon the petitioner. This contention is without any merit as the finding of fact is recorded by both the lower authorities below that the petitioner was served with the notice of the special meeting along with copy of the requisition and the petitioner’s acknowledgment is there on record. The counsel further submits that the grounds on which the No Confidence Motion was passed and the grounds given in requisition are different. I do not find any substance in this submission also, as there is no provision under which the No Confidence Motion is required to be passed only on the grounds mentioned in requisition. The counsel lastly submitted that resolution of No Confidence Motion had been passed without there being any proposer or seconder. The counsel relied upon the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules,1959 .