1 wp11143.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11143 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3. 1. Heard Advocate Mr. A.B. Kale for petitioner and learned A.G.P. Mrs. Shinde for respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. Mr. Kale has invited attention to order dated 21st December, 2010, which records some conclusion prima facie. According to him, whenever post of Sarpanch is held by woman, no confidence motion must be passed by 3/4th majority. Otherwise `Coma' placed in first proviso of sub-section 3 of Section 35 after word "Woman" and before word "is held" will be rendered superfluous. He heavily relied upon the observations made in the order dated 21st December, 2010 to substantiate his contentions. 3. Learned A.G.P. states that the coma in dispute does not imply any such inference as is sought to be drawn by the petitioner. She points out that if interpretation of petitioner is accepted, words "being 2 wp11143.10 reserved for Woman" used in that proviso is rendered superfluous. 4. Perusal of Section 35(3) clearly shows an intention to provide extra protection to woman Sarpanch, provided she is elected on the post which is reserved for woman. Thus, the woman elected as Sarpanch on open post or in other reserved post is not entitled to that protection. The coma used in first proviso on which the learned counsel is placing reliance does not enable reading of the word appearing thereafter namely `is held by woman Sarpanch' as in conjunction with word "office of Sarpanch". The intervening words "being reserved for woman" are important and have been deliberately introduced by legislature. Significance thereof can not be done away with by accepting the interpretation being canvased by the petitioner. I therefore find the contentions of the petitioner are unsustainable. Petition is rejected. 5. Learned Counsel requests that the interim order already operating should be continued for a period of two weeks. Learned A.G.P. is opposing the said request. Prayer of learned Counsel for petitioner is rejected. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 21.01.2011 gas/wp11143.10