- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 2095 OF 2010 Mrs. Rani Arun Lohar .. Petitioner Vs. Shivaji Bhagwan Adgale & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Ajay A. Joshi, for the Petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Salunkhe with Mr. Jaydeep D. Mane, for Respondent Nos. 2 to 7. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos. 9, 11 and 12. CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : MAY 4, 2010. P.C. : 1. This petition by erstwhile Sarpanch of village Gardi, Taluka Pandharpur, district Solapur, is directed against the order of the Collector Solapur, rejecting her dispute and judgment and order of the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, dismissing her appeal against the Collector’s order. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this petition are as - 2 - under- . The petitioner was elected as member of the Gram Panchayat Gardi on 21st December 2008 and was elected as its Sarpanch on 19th February, 2009. On 24th November 2009, six out of nine members of the Gram Panchayat called upon the Tahsildar to put a no confidence motion, which they sought to move, for discussion at a meeting. They had stated that the petitioner was conducting affairs of the Gram Panchayat without taking members into confidence; did not remain present at the meeting and used to sign proceedings by calling employees at home; did not spend funds received from the Government in time, failed to provide information to the members about receipts and disbursement, and neglected joining Nirmal Gram campaign. The Tahsildar accordingly convened meeting of the Gram Panchayat for discussing motion of no confidence on 30th November 2009. A copy of requisition by the six members of the Gram Panchayat was admittedly received by the petitioner along with letter No. /KAVI/1426/09 dated 25-11-2009. It is further petitioner’s case that notice convening the meeting on 30-11-2009 was not received by the petitioner. 3. A meeting was held on 30-11-2009 at which the petitioner and two members of the Gram Panchayat were absent. No confidence - 3 - motion was discussed and put to vote at which all the six members of the Gram Panchayat present, voted in favour of the resolution. The Tahsildar was presided over the meeting, held that motion was carried by the required two-third majority. 4. The petitioner raised dispute under section 35(3-B) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, before the Collector. The petitioner claimed that the notice issued by the Tahsildar was incorrect and illegal. The notice shows that it pertains to village Khed-Bhose, taluka Pandharpur. Therefore, according to the petitioner, no notice for discussing a no confidence motion for unseating Sarpanch of village Gardi, the post which she was holding, had received held by her. Therefore, she prayed that decision of the Tahsildar that no confidence motion was passed, should be set aside. 5. The members of the Gram Panchayat who had moved no confidence motion, filed a reply and after considering the contentions of the parties, the Collector raised four issues for determination. This petition is restricted only to the question as to whether the notice of the motion had been served on the petitioner and whether petitioner had been afforded adequate opportunity to answer the allegations at the meeting which was held. The Collector considered the question whether - 4 - notice has been duly served or not, and held that although in the copy of letter which had been received by the petitioner, the name of village referred to was “Khed-Bhose”, it had been in fact scored out and replaced by hand-written word “Gardi”. The Collector found that this small lapse could not result in concluding that the notice has not been received by the petitioner. He therefore, held after considering other contentions of the parties, that Tahsildar’s decision in respect of no confidence motion was proper. 6. While preferring appeal before the Commissioner, the petitioner had raised several grounds, including one that notice issued was wrong and unlawful. Before the Commissioner, when the matter came up for hearing on 6th February, 2010 Advocate J. P. Ghaytadak on behalf of the petitioner sought adjournment which the Commissioner rejected. The Commissioner heard the advocates for the members who had moved the no confidence motion; considered the points raised in the memo of appeal and then upheld the order passed by the Collector. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by rejecting an adjournment, the Commissioner had violated the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the Commissioner should have seen - 5 - that and important issue was at stake and elected representative of the people was sought to be unseated and therefore, he could have granted an adjournment to enable him to hear the petitioner few points before taking a reasoned decision on the appeal filed. 8. It is unfortunate that parties have been taking proceedings before the Courts and Tribunal very casually and seem to have gathered an impression that an adjournment is a matter of right which ought to be granted for the asking. Ordinarily if a party is so concerned abouts rights and if it has preferred an appeal, it should be ready with the necessary arguments and would not be justified in seeking an adjournment. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not state as to the ground on which the adjournment was sought. Therefore, the judgment of the Commissioner, Pune Division cannot be faulted on the ground that he refused adjournment to the petitioner. 9. This takes me to the merits of the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to assail the orders passed on the ground that they are devoid of sound reasons and for this purpose placed reliance on the judgment in the case of – Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Gantantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors. [(2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 732]. There can be no doubt that reason is the - 6 - heart beat of every decision. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lefeless. But it cannot be said that orders passed by the Collector or the Commissioner are devoid of reasons. May be the authorities fell short of articulatory expectations which the petitioner may have, but reasons are there, and therefore, this judgment would be unhelpful to the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the scheme of section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act and the Rules for considering no confidence motion, as well as Meeting Rules would show that a person sought to be unseated by a motion of no confidence is expected to be given sufficient notice before the motion is taken for discussion. At such meeting, the persons must have an adequate opportunity of addressing the House so that he could resist the motion and put forth his view point before the motion is put to vote. If this procedure is not followed, it would have to be held that the person was denied the benefit of fundamental principles of natural justice Audi Alteram Partem. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of – Trimbak Gangadhar Telang Vs. Ramchandra Ganesh Bhide [AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1222], the learned counsel for the petitioner rightly submitted that when there is flagrant violation of fundamentals of - 7 - natural justice a writ Court ought to intervene to set right the wrong which is done. There can be no doubt about this principle. 11. The question however, is whether the petitioner had made out a case that she was denied an opportunity of participating in that meeting at which no confidence motion against her was discussed and put to vote. The petitioner seems to be harping on a reference to Khed- Bhose village in the notice issued on 25th November 2009. Exhibit “B” at page 12 of the paper book would show that copy of letter dated 25th November, 2009 which was served upon the petitioner referred to village Khed-Bhose. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this village is at about 40 Kms. away and not an adjacent village. He also fairly drew my attention to the endorsement on the letter to the Gram Sevak of village Gardi, taluka Pandharpur. It may be seen that tthe letter is addressed to Sarpanch and Upasarpanch of village Gardi. This letter also shows that no confidence motion against Sarpanch of village Gardi was to be discussed. Therefore, the petitioner, who is a Sarpanch and appears to be literate, as can be seen from her signature at page 43 of the paper book, on the acknowledgment, tendered by respondent No. 9, could not have been mislead by a stray reference to village Khed- Bhose. She could have been in any case asked the Tahsildar as to why a - 8 - notice in relation to no confidence motion of another village was sent to her. 12. While perfection in discharge of duties by a public officer is to be expected, mistakes of the type, that crept in on account of failure of the Tahsildar possibly to modify a computer file, presumably about no confidence motion of village Khed-Bhose, before using it for issuing notice in respect of no confidence motion of village Gardi, cannot be allowed to defeat the democratic process and the will of the representatives of the people. Therefore, this reference to village Khed- Bhose in letter at page 12 cannot help the petitioner. At the cost of repetition it has to be pointed out that not only way the letter addressed to Sarpanch and Upasarpanch of village Gardi, but it has been specially mentioned that it was about discussion of no confidence motion against the Sarpanch of village Gardi, and a copy thereof was endorsed to Gram-Sevak of village Gardi. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is not the only grievance of the petitioner and the petitioner had in fact not at all received notice dated 25th November 2009, issued to petitioner and all other members of the Gram Panchayat by the Tahsildar convening the meeting on 30th November 2009 at 5 p. m. in the office of the Gram - 9 - Panchayat to discuss no confidence motion. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had received only one notice in respect of which an acknowledgment had been filed at page 44. This is at page 12 of the paper book. He submitted that no other notice had been received by the petitioner and the record does not show that any different notices had been tendered to the petitioner. Therefore, according to him, there is nothing to show that the petitioner had been informed of the meeting, to be held on 30th November 2009 and thereby was deprived of the opportunity to participate at the meeting and to vote thereat. It is true that there is only acknowledgment with the report of the Talathi dated 27th November 2009. But this one acknowledgment does not imply that all the necessary documents had not been given to the members. There is another reason for concluding that acknowledgment at page 44 is not in respect of Exhibit “B” at page 12 of the paper book, but in fact is in respect of Exhibit “II” at page 43 of the paper book. This was the notice bearing the same number, issued by the Tahsildar on 25th November 2009 to all nine members of the Gram Panchayat. The acknowledgment shows nine names of members with their signatures against their names. Letter Exhibit “B” at page 12 of the paper-book is addressed to six persons i.e. Sarpanch, Upasarpanch, the Divisional Commissioner, the - 10 - Collector, the Chief Executive Officer and the Block Development Officer and not member of Gram Panhayat. Thus, acknowledgment at page 44 could not have been in respect of letter at Exhibit “B”. Therefore, the attempt of the petitioner to take advantage of there being a single acknowledgment, cannot succeed. It seems that since the petitioner knew to what was to come and kept away from the meeting for which she has to blame herself. 14. In view of this, it cannot be said that the Collector or the Commissioner erred in holding that the dispute raised by the petitioner had no merit. Writ petition is therefore, dismissed. Sd/- [R. C. CHAVAN, J.]