bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2418 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 2418 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 2418 OF 2009 Sou.Ratnamala Sahebrao Karande ... Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Sandeep M. Phatak for the petitioner. Ms.S.S.Bhende, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for respondent Nos.5 to 20. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 4TH MAY, 2009 4TH MAY, 2009 4TH MAY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, by which the petitioner’s election as a Sarpanch has been set aside. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order passed by the Collector, Pune, dated 11th December, 2008 and the resolution passed by the Village Panchayat, Dehu, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune, has been confirmed. 2. The petitioner’s main contention appears to be that the no confidence motion has been passed by the 2 Panchayat and the meeting has been conducted by the Tahsildar in violation of the provisions of Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. According to the petitioner, the meeting for passing the no confidence motion ought to have been convened within seven days of the receipt of the request by the Tahsildar. These provisions are mandatory, contends the petitioner. 3. The matter at hand has a checkered history since the petitioner had challenged the proceedings in the no confidence motion passed against her on 14th September, 2007 in an earlier round of litigation. She failed before the District Collector and the Divisional Commissioner. Therefore, she preferred a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.662 of 2008. The Collector, Pune, was directed by this Court to decide the matter afresh. On remand, the Collector allowed the dispute application filed by the petitioner and quashed and set aside the proceedings of the special meeting for passing the no confidence motion dated 14.9.2007. The Collector directed the Tahsildar to convene a meeting afresh after serving a notice on all the members including the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner. By an order dated 20.5.2008 the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The 3 petitioner then preferred Writ Petition No.3491 of 2008. The writ petition was disposed of confirming the order of the Collector. Thereafter the Tahsildar intimated the petitioner that the special meeting for moving the no confidence motion would be held on 20.9.2008. Accordingly, the meeting was held and the motion was passed. The petitioner was thus voted out of office. Aggrieved by that decision, the petitioner filed a fresh dispute application before the Collector on 16.12.2008. That dispute application was dismissed and, therefore, the appeal was preferred by the petitioner. That appeal met with the same fate and hence the present petition. 4. Before proceeding to discuss the merits of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to consider the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3491 of 2008. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the petition has observed thus:- "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 4 notice of the said meeting. Therefore, Therefore, Therefore, respondent respondent respondent No.3, rightly directed Tahsildar to No.3, rightly directed Tahsildar to No.3, rightly directed Tahsildar to convene convene convene the meeting of members of Grampanchayat the meeting of members of Grampanchayat the meeting of members of Grampanchayat to to to discuss no confidence motion after giving discuss no confidence motion after giving discuss no confidence motion after giving notice notice notice to all members. to all members. 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." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, it is apparent on a reading of this order that the learned Judge had held that the Collector’s decision could not be faulted since the proceedings for the special meeting on 14.9.2007 were quashed on the ground that the petitioner had not received the notice of the meeting. It was further observed that the respondent No.3 therein i.e. the Collector, had rightly directed the Tahsildar to reconvene a meeting of the members of the Gram Panchayat in order to discuss the no confidence motion afresh, after giving notice to all the members. 5. The Collector, by his order had directed that the meeting should be reconvened since the petitioner had not received the notice of the meeting. 6. In my opinion, the petitioner cannot now contend that a fresh meeting could be held only if the members had submitted a requisition for moving a no confidence motion afresh and not on the basis of the earlier notice dated 10.9.2007. This submission in the facts of the present case cannot be accepted since all the 5 proceedings have been conducted after hearing the petitioner and a meeting was reconvened on the basis of the earlier notice only because the petitioner had not been served with the notice. If the petitioner’s contention is to be accepted, it would defeat the very purpose of the earlier orders passed including by this Court, for reconvening a meeting on the basis of the requisition received by the Tahsildar on 10.9.2007. 7. Writ petition rejected. .....