1 wp5304.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5304 OF 2010 Mangal Sitaram Gaikwad ...Petitioner vs. Tanaji Bhimu Tone & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Nilesh Wable i/b Mr.Umesh R.Mankapure. For the petitioner Mr.Suresh Bhosale, A.G.P for respondent Nos.7 to 9 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P for the respondent Nos.7 to 9. The petitioner who was a Sarpanch of a village panchayat has challenged the no confidence motion passed against her. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an application was made by the petitioner under sub section 3 (B) of section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act,1958 within the stipulated period of 7 days after excluding the period required for obtaining a certified copy of the resolution passed by the village panchayat. He invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in reply dated 22nd March 2010 filed by the petitioner before the District Collector. He submitted that without considering the time required for obtaining certified copy of the resolution, the District Collector committed an error by holding that the petitioner has not applied within the stipulated period. He invited the attention of the Court to the proviso to sub section 3 of section 35 of the said Act which provides that where the seat of Sarpanch is reserved for woman and is held by a woman, the motion of no confidence has to be carried by 3/4th of total number 2 wp5304.sxw of members. He submitted that in the present case the motion has not been carried by the 3/4th majority. 2 I have considered the submissions. As far as 2nd submission is concerned, neither before the District Collector nor in appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, a factual contention that the petitioner was occupying a seat reserved for woman has been raised. Therefore, the said contention cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the Writ Petition. 3 Sub section (3-B) of section 35 of the said Act reads thus : (3-B) If the Sarpanch or, as the case may be, the Upa-Sarpanch desires to dispute the validity of the motion carried under sub- section (3), he shall, within seven days from the date on which such motion was carried, refer the dispute to the Collector who shall decide it, as far as possible, within fifteen days from the date on which it was received by him; and any such decision shall, subject to an appeal under sub-section (3-C), be final. 4 Period of limitation for referring the dispute is 7 days from the date on which the motion is carried. Admittedly, the application made by the petitioner was not within the stipulated period of 7 days from the date on which the motion was carried but the contention of the petitioner is that the time required for obtaining a certified copy of the resolution is required to be excluded while computing the period of 7 days. The said submission cannot be acceded to as the provisions of the 3 wp5304.sxw Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to sub section 3(B) section 35 of the said Act. There is no provision under the said Act under which the period of 7 days can be extended on any ground. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner to the motion of no confidence could not have been entertained by the District Collector. The no confidence motion passed against the petitioner by majority of members could have been subjected to challenge only in accordance with sub- section 3(B) of section 35 of the said Act. The petitioner failed to apply within the stipulated period of 7 days and therefore, the District Collector was right in holding that the application was barred by limitation. Hence, there is no merit in the petition and the same is rejected. JUDGE