1 W.P. 2988/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2988/2011 MANGAL W/O DILIP JADHAV VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Mr. S.S. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. V.U. Jadhav, Advocate for respondents No. 6 to 10. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 11th August, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard immediately. 2. This writ petition is filed against the concurrent findings recorded by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad as well as The Additional Collector, Latur Dist. Latur, that the village/Gram panchayat of which petitioner was Sarpanch, has lawfully passed resolution of no confidence in the meeting dated 9th October, 2010. The facts leading to the litigation are admitted and are as under. The petitioner was the Sarpanch of this village panchayat which earlier had strength of seven members. In August, 2010, one of the members Smt. Anita, respondent No.11 had put in her paper and had resigned. Her resignation was accepted by a lawful resolution passed by the Gram panchayat. Due to her resignation strength of the Gram panchayat became six. On 13th October, 2010 four existing members and Anita issued a notice under section 35(1) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, requisiting a meeting to be called for passing a resolution of no confidence against the petitioner. As per this notice, the meeting of village panchayat was called on 9th October, 2010 in which the petitioner was present along with other five members (respondent No.11 Anita was not 2 W.P. 2988/2011 present in the said meeting). In this meeting, as per the minutes of the meeting placed on record, the Presiding Officer of the meeting allowed all the members to speak on the proposed resolution of no confidence and it is further recorded that no person in the meeting desired to speak. Thereafter, the resolution was put to vote and all except the petitioner voted in favour of the resolution. The resolution was accordingly passed. The meeting was held in presence of the Tahsildar and Gram sevak. The minutes of the meeting were written by the Gram Sevak. After passing this resolution, the petitioner went before the Additional Collector, challenging the legality of the resolution. But the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner’s further appeal filed before the Divisional Commissioner also failed. As against this, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner asserted that the notice issued under sub section 35(1) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 was illegal because Anita a non-member had put her signature on it. He is conveniently forgetting that the other four existing members had signed the minutes of meeting and therefore, even if her signature is found to be unwarranted, there was sufficient support for requisitions. Out of six members, four requisitioned the meeting as against required strength of 1/3rd. Thereafter, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner asserted that the petitioner was not allowed to speak in the meeting but this is a factually incorrect submission because the minutes of meeting clearly mentioned that everyone person in the meeting was given an opportunity. The learned advocate then submitted that meeting rules were not followed. He said that as per the meeting rules, even for such meeting, the resolution should have been proposed by one member and should have been seconded by another member. Admittedly, such procedure was not followed. According to him, because of this lacuna, 3 W.P. 2988/2011 subsequent resolution passed against his client, was illegal. He placed reliance on full bench judgment in the case of Viswas Pandurang Mokal Vs. Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu and others reported in 2011(3) Mh. L. J. 501. But having regard to the ratio laid down in the judgment, it is obvious that it does not support the contention of the petitioner. 5. The learned advocate then submitted that the learned Commissioner while dismissing the appeal, did not apply his mind and the case should be remanded back to him. I am afraid, this is a lame excuse for prolonging the litigation. The resolution was passed lawfully. The petitioner is in hopeless situation. All the other five members of the panchayat were together while passing this resolution. The petitioner should have accepted this gracefully. But the petitioner has prolonged this litigation and put the respondents to unnecessary hardship. The petition therefore, should be dismissed. ORDER The petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] ts k/2011/August11/wp2988.11