IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.662 of 2008. Writ Petition No.662 of 2008. Writ Petition No.662 of 2008. Sou. Ratnamala S. Karande ..Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Sandeep Pathak for the Petitioner Mr.S.K.Chincholikar AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. Sadavarte for Respondent Nos.5 to 20 Coram : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Coram : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Coram : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Dated : 5th February, 2008 Dated : 5th February, 2008 Dated : 5th February, 2008 P.C. 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the Order passed by the Collector, Pune, in the matter pertaining to the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner, who is the lady sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. 2. The specific contention raised before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on 10th September, 2007 the office of Tahsildar addressed a letter informing the present petitioner that 15 members of the Gram Panchayat, Dehu have forwarded to him a Notice expressing no confidence in the petitioner and their request is to convene -2- special meeting on 14th July, 2007 at 4.00 p.m. in the Gram Panchayat Office. Although, this communication states that a copy of the Notice issued by 15 members proposing to remove the petitioner and expressing no confidence in her is annexed to this communication, she has received only the letter/communication without the accompaniment or annexures thereto. 3. The original record is produced. The learned AGP hands over a copy of this communication to me. The communication specifically states that the notice accompanies this communication and it should be served to the persons who are required to be served under the rules. One of them is the petitioner-Sarpanch, in whom no confidence is expressed. The petitioner has contended before me that on 14.9.2007 she approached the concerned authorities and complained that what is served upon her by the assistant of the Gao Kamgar/Talathi is only the communication with no annexures or accompaniments thereto. She pointed out that at the meeting she will have to reply to the charges made against her and, therefore, she must be made aware of the alleged grounds on which the said members are -3- expressing no confidence in her. The letter dated 14th September, 2007 has been duly received in the Tahsildar office on 14.9.2007. In the meeting that was convened on 14.9.2007 the petitioner specifically raised this issue and pointed out that she does not have any notice of the proposed resolution but she has attended the meeting to show her bonafides. She is taken by surprise about the No-Confidence Motion. 4. These specific contentions were being raised before the District Collector. Now, before me it is contended by Shri Sadavarte, learned Counsel, appearing for the persons who have been instrumental in removing the petitioner, that the petitioner’s pleas are after thought and are patently false. She had received the communication and it cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that she did not receive the notice with accompaniments or annexures to this communication. In such circumstances, there is no substance in this contention. 5. The learned AGP also tried to show from the record that the petitioner had notice of the -4- resolution which was to be moved against her at the special meeting. 6. A perusal of the impugned order does not indicate that the authorities concerned have applied their mind to these specific pleas although they were raised before them. While it is true that in a democratic process a party like the petitioner must accept the say or wish of the majority, but there is a equal protection granted to the elected members like the petitioner in the law. Law ensures that after the meeting is convened, no confidence resolution is moved and carried, the aggrieved parties like the petitioner can approach the Collector under Section 35(3B) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. In such circumstances, and when the duty of the authorities is to ensure that the democratic process has been followed, the rules have been adhered to and despite opportunities being granted to the parties like the petitioner, majority is against them. This plain duty of the authorities under the above statutory provision has not been performed in as much as I am convinced from a perusal of the impugned order that the Collector and the Commissioner have failed to apply their mind to -5- this vital aspect. There are no reasons, much less conclusions which Mr. Sadavarte would like me to draw in the impugned orders. In such circumstances, on this short ground alone, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. The petitioner’s dispute/application under Section 35(3B) is restored to the file of the Collector, Pune, for being heard afresh and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier orders. Needless to say that the order passed by the Commissioner is also quashed and set aside. The petition succeeds. However, it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and all contentions and pleas are kept open for being raised before the Collector. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the Collector on 12th February, 2008, and the Collector to endeavour and dispose of the matter within three weeks from the receipt of the order. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.) (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.) (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)