*1* wp.361.11.923.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.361 OF 2011 Tanaji Shivaji Pashte. ..Petitioner -Versus- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Anil Kumar Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. None for the Respondent Nos.5 to 11. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 16th June, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard Mr.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.Patne, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. None appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.5 to 11, though they are duly served. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2 It is specific case of the Petitioner that he was elected as Sarpanch of Village Panchayat, Majgaon. While he was working as Sarpanch, the members, namely, Respondent Nos.6 to 11 gave a notice of no-confidence to the Tahasildar. The case of the Petitioner is that the meeting was convened although the notice of convening of such meeting was not served on the Petitioner in terms of the statutory provision. The notice could not have been served on the Petitioner because he was hospitalized. It appears that the meeting proceeded on the basis that some adult member in the family of Petitioner has received a notice and therefore, it is duly served. On the date when the meeting was convened, cousin brother of the Petitioner attended the venue and informed the Tahasildar that the Petitioner is unwell and therefore, unable to attend the *2* wp.361.11.923.sxw meeting. The meeting proceeded and the resolution was stated to have been passed expressing no-confidence in the Petitioner. The Petitioner raised a dispute before the Collector under Section 35(3-B) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short “the Act”). The Petitioner firstly pointed out that there was no notice of meeting. Secondly, he pointed out that no opportunity was given to the Petitioner to speak and thus, there is complete violation of Section 35(2) of the Act. The grounds in that behalf raised in the dispute application were indeed argued. However, both the Collector, as also, the Commissioner have held that the notice has been duly served and the argument in that behalf is without any substance. As far as absence of the Petitioner from meeting is concerned, it has been observed that the request of the Petitioner that he will not be able to attend the meeting has been rightly rejected and the proceedings conducted later on have been found to be valid. 3 Both the Collector and the Commissioner have failed to record any finding as to whether, the notice which is stated to have been served by pasting is valid, when it is not their case that the Petitioner was out of village or not available and particularly, the grievance raised was that he was hospitalized. Secondly, assuming that the notice was properly and validly served, yet, the meeting which was conducted in the absence of the Petitioner and when the Presiding Officer was made aware by the cousin brother of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is unwell; can be said to be legal and valid and whether, the right conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Act is violated or that is capable of being waived or has been indeed waived. No discussion on this vital aspect is found in the impugned orders. Without adverting to this fact, whether, such meeting can be said to be legal and valid and whether, no-confidence motion can be held to be properly and legally passed; ought to have been decided. It *3* wp.361.11.923.sxw is bounden duty of the authorities like the Collector and the Commissioner, who are expected to be independent and impartial, to decide a dispute arising out of the no-confidence motion. It is not as if the democratic principles require that every no-confidence motion must be upheld without considering individual facts and circumstances of each case. Whether, there is any prejudice caused by violation of the legal provision or rules and whether, there is any legal sanctity attached to the no-confidence motion which has been passed without any opportunity being given to the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch, are equally important issues and matters which affect working of the democratic institution. Nobody can dictate the terms and the affairs of even Panchayats have to be conducted in transparent manner and according to the democratic tradition. If the Collector and the Commissioner are not going to decide vital issues and acting as mere rubber stamp authorities, then, very purpose of conferring powers on them would be defeated. 4 In such circumstances, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. The Collector shall hear the dispute afresh without being influenced by any of the observations made earlier and bearing in mind the issues highlighted above. The Collector shall make an endeavour to dispose of the dispute as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of appearance of the parties before him. The Petitioner shall appear before the Collector on 22nd June, 2011 at 10:30 a.m.. 5 Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Ad-interim order passed by this Court to continue till the Collector renders his decision. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)