1008wp3862.11.odt 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3862 of 2011. Ranjeet Wamanrao Rahate. .vs.. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Dn.Nagpur and ors. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. V.K.Bisen,Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 10th August, 2011. 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 13/7/2011 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division,Nagpur, by which order the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24/5/2011 passed by the Additional Collector, Nagpur came to be rejected. 2. The petitioner was the Sarpanch of village Navargaon, Tq.Ramtek. A requisition signed by nine members out of eleven for passing of ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner herein was submitted to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar acting on the said requisition held the meeting on 17/3/2011. In the said meeting, the motion came to be passed by a majority of 9:2 against the petitioner. The voting took place by Show-of- Hands. 3. The petitioner thereafter took exception to the no 1008wp3862.11.odt 2 confidence motion passed against him by filing a dispute before the Additional Collector under Section 35(3)(b) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The petitioner challenged the said action inter alia on the ground that the notice issued by the Tahsildar was not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 2(2) of the relevant Rules being the Sarpanch and Upasarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975. It was the contention of the petitioner, therefore, that the entire proceedings relating to the passing of the no confidence motion against him were illegal and bad in law. 4. The Additional Collector heard the said application filed by the petitioner and by his order dated 24/5/2011 rejected the said application and confirmed the motion of no confidence passed against the petitioner. The Additional Collector has inter alia recorded a finding that the notice of the meeting was served upon all the members. The petitioner and the requisitionists were heard in the said meeting. The Additional Collector has further recorded a finding that the notice of the said special meeting was also forwarded to the Collector, C.E.O., Zilla Parishad and the other Governmental Officers. It has also been observed that the petitioner was allowed to address the Meeting. The Additional Collector therefore did not deem it fit to interfere with the said no confidence motion passed against the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 24/5/2011 passed by the Additional Collector, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Additional Commissioner which Appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 13/7/2011. The Additional Commissioner has inter alia held that a discussion 1008wp3862.11.odt 3 has taken place in respect of the no confidence motion in the meeting and same came to be passed by the majority of 9:2 and that the contention of the petitioner that the same has not been proposed and seconded was, therefore, only a technical view of the matter. 6. It is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2011(3) ALL MR 778 in the matter of Shri Viswas Pandurang Mokal ..vs.. Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu and ors. that the Special Meeting, which is held for passing of no confidence motion, has to be held in terms of Rule 17 of the Rules. 7. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court reported in 2010(4) ALL M.R.707 in the matter of Vijay Ramchandra Katkar ..vs.. Group Gram Panchayat Pali and others. It cannot be gain said that the meeting has to be held in terms of the Rules. However, the facts in the instant case unequivocally disclose that the notices were issued to all the members and also the proponents of the said no confidence motion as well as the petitioner were allowed to address the gathering. The plea raised by the petitioner that there was no proposer or seconder to the said Resolution passed against him can, therefore, be said to be highly technical view and would not impinge upon the no confidence motion passed against him, as ultimately the right to continue as a Sarpanch has to be decided on the floor or the house. The petitioner unfortunately failed in the said test. 8. In so far as the judgment of the learned Single Judge 1008wp3862.11.odt 4 of this court is concerned, the facts in the said case stand apart from the facts in the present case, in asmuch as in the said case it can be ex facie seen that the procedure was not followed in asmuch as Sarpanch in that case was not heard in the said meeting. It is in the said context that the directions in that case came to be issued. 9. Having perused the order passed by the authorities below, I do not find any illegality or infirmity for this court to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute