wp5070.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.5070/2011 Sau.Varsha Ravindra Jayaswal -vs- The Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Bhutada, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 10.10.2011. Heard. The petitioner-Sarpanch was removed in view of the no confidence motion passed against him by seven out of the nine members present in the special meeting. The application filed by the petitioner before the Additional Collector was dismissed and an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Additional Collector before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 23/09/2011. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was a violation of the provisions of Rule 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 as the subject of the special meeting was not put by way of a question in the special meeting. On a perusal of the proceedings, it appears that after the meeting commenced, the notice was specifically read out to wp5070.11.odt 2/3 the members. Hence, it appears that there is a compliance of provisions of Rule 16 of the Meetings Rules, 1959. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the motion was not proposed and seconded as required by the provisions of Rule 17 of the Meetings Rules, 1959. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thought the names of four members find place in the proceedings register, they had actually not stood up to state that they were proposing and seconding the motion. The ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is liable to be rejected firstly for the reason that the said ground is not raised in the afore stated fashion before the Additional Collector. It was the case of the petitioner before the Additional Collector that the names of the proposer and the seconder are not mentioned in the proceedings book. However, this is not so. The names of the proposer and the seconder are clearly mentioned in the proceedings book and it appears on a reading of the minutes that the motion was proposed and seconded in the special meeting. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the Tahsildar ought to have permitted the voting by secret ballot and in the absence of such permission, the no confidence motion is invalid is liable to be rejected as the rules prescribe that the voting should be ordinarily done by word of mouth or by show of hands and if the majority of members so decide, the same may be conducted by secret ballot. In this case, admittedly the majority of the members had not requested for wp5070.11.odt 3/3 voting by secret ballot and only two members, including the petitioner, had asked for the same. Hence, the no confidence motion cannot be set aside on the ground that permission ought to have been granted for voting by a secret ballot. The last submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the notice of no confidence motion is cryptic is also liable to be rejected as the notice clearly states the allegations levelled against the petitioner-Sarpanch. The no confidence motion passed against the petitioner with three fourth majority cannot be invalidated on the aforesaid submission. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE