1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3491 OF 2008 Sou. Ratnamala Sahebrao Karande Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Mr.Sandeep Phatak for the petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for respondents 1 to 4. Mr.Prathmesh Bhargude for respondents 5, 10, 12, 16 and 17. Mr.B.R.Deshmukh for respondents 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 to 15, 18 and 19. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 21st July, 2008 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petition takes exception to the order passed by respondent no.2 in the appeal under Section 35(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. By this order not only the petitioner’s appeal is dismissed, but the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner in a special meeting of members of Grampanchayat, Dehu is confirmed. 3. Few facts giving rise to the petition are as 2 follows: . Village Panchayuat, Dehu consists of 17 members. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch on 24.8.2005 of said Grampanchayat. On 10.9.2007 requisite number of members gave requisition to respondent no.4 requesting him to call for a special meeting to discuss no confidence motion against the petitioner. Pursuant to the above requisition, the Tahsildar, respondent no.4 convened a meeting of members of the Grampanahcyat on 14.9.2007 and in this meeting no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner by 2/3rd majority. 4. The petitioner challenged the proceedings of the special meeting in which no confidence motion was passed by filing dispute under section 35(3-B) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act before respondent no.3. The said dispute was rejected and, therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent no.2 under Section 35(3-C) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act however, same was also dismissed. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Writ Petition No.662/2008 in this Court. After hearing the parties, the said writ petition was allowed. The impugned order therein came to be quashed and the matter was remanded back to the Collector for fresh disposal. 5. The respondent no.3-Collector thereafter passed an 3 order by which he set aside the proceedings of the special meeting, held on 14.9.2007 to discuss the no confidence motion against the petitioner. Respondent no.3 further directed the respondent no.4-Tahsildar to convene fresh special meeting to discuss no confidence motion. The petitioner being aggrieved by the second part of the order passed by respondent no.3 filed an appeal before respondent no.2-Divisional Commissioner and respondent no.2 not only dismissed the petitioner’s appeal but also confirmed the proceedings of the special meeting dated 14.9.2007 in which no confidence motion was carried against the petitioner. This order is impugned in the present petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order, in my considered opinion, there is merit in the petition. Respondent no.3 by his order dated 7.3.2008 passed under Section 35 (3-B) quashed and set aside the proceeding of the special meeting of Grampanchayat, Dehu held on 14.9.2007 to discuss the no confidence motion against the petitioner. The proceedings came to be quashed on the ground that though the petitioner received requisition, she did not receive notice of Tahsildar convening the special meeting on 14.9.2007 to discuss the no confidence motion. In my view, the order of the Collector so far as it relates to the quashing and 4 setting aside the proceeding of the special meeting is correct and no fault can be found in view of the provisions of Rule 2 of Bombay Village Panchayat Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975. So far as the latter part of respondent no.3-Collector’s order regarding direction to respondent no.4-Tahsildar to call for special meeting afresh to discuss no confidence motion against the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner filed appeal under section 35(3-C) before respondent no.2-Divisional Commissioner. It is worth to mention that none of respondents 5 to 19 challenged the respondent no.3’s order passed on 7.3.2008. Therefore, first part of order of respondent no.3 regarding quashing and setting aside the proceedings of the special meeting dated 14.9.2007 is concerned, the same has become final. Respondent no.2 by the impugned order not only dismissed the petitioner’s appeal which was filed challenging the latter part of the order of respondent no.3-Collector but also confirmed the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner in a special meeting held on 14.9.2007. In my considered view, the respondent no.2 could not have travelled beyond the challenge given by the petitioner to the Collector’s order dated 7.3.2008. The first part of Collector’s order was not the subject matter of appeal filed by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that respondent no.2 5 exceeded his jurisdiction while confirming the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner in the special meeting dated 14.9.2007 and, therefore, so far as this part of order is concerned, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. This takes me to consider the legality and validity of the impugned order so far as it dismisses the petitioner’s appeal challenging the latter part of Collector’s order dated 7.3.2008. Respondent no.3 by passing the second part of order merely directed the respondent no.4-Tahsildar to convene fresh meeting to discuss the no confidence motion against the petitioner. In my view,this direction cannot be faulted inasmuch as the proceedings of special meeting held on 14.9.2007 was quashed on the ground that the petitioner did not receive notice of the said meeting. Therefore, respondent no.3, rightly directed Tahsildar to convene the meeting of members of Grampanchayat to discuss no confidence motion after giving notice to all members. Respondent no.2-Divisional Commissioner was justified in refusing to interfere in respondent no.3’s order and rightly dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. No interference is called for in this regard. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of the petition by passing following order: 6 ORDER ORDER ORDER (i) The impugned order passed by respondent no.2-Divisional Commissioner so far as it relates to dismissal of petitioner’s appeal under section 35(3-C) is concerned, the same is confirmed and not interfered with. (ii) The impugned order so far as it confirms the no confidence motion allegedly passed in a special meeting of Grampanchayat, Dehu on 14.9.2008 is concerned, the same is quashed and set aside and respondent no.3-Collector’s order dated 7.3.2008 is restored in toto. 9. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]