1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 184/2008 in Writ Petition No. 939/2008 (Decided) Shriram Tulshiram Tade ..vs.. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati & Ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Mirza, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Fulzele, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Karia, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 to 9. Mr. Rai, Advocate for respondent no. 12. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND C. L. PANGARKAR, JJ. DATED : September 18, 2008 1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against the order dated 10.04.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge thereby dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner that resulted into confirmation of the order passed by Additional Commissioner being the appellate Authority under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and Rules framed thereunder (For short “Act” and “Rules”) those reasonings are as under:- “Gram Panchayat Mozar constituted of nine members out of whom six members have tender notice of requisitioned to the Tahsildar, Ner in 2 person on 23.10.2007 for convening the special meeting against the Sarpanch i.e. Respondent No. 3 who lost their faith. Thereupon, Tahsildar issued notices to all the members on the same day. When the peon of the Gram Panchayat office visited the house of Sarpanch, Sarpanch was out of station. Her wife stated that please give me the notice instead of affixing on the door of the house. During the course of no confidence meeting Sarpanch was deliberately absent as he was aware that notice was given to him. Meeting was conducted wherein motion was passed against the respondent No. 3. In one of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in writ petition No. 7218/2007 Hon'ble High Court has held that “In a democratic set up, when the person has lost majority, he cannot be trusted upon an institution. The Apex Court in the case of K. Narasimhim ..vs.. H.C. Singri Gowda and others (AIR 1966 SC 330) has held that unless prejudice could be said to have been caused on account of procedural requirement, the court should not interfere in the motion of no confidence” Ultimately the resolution came to be passed by majority. No confidence motion passed by thumping 3 majority deserves to be maintained in view of the discussion above and as held by the Hon'ble High Court in many case. Hence, I pass the following order: The appeal being repleat of merit is allowed. The order of lower court is quashed and set aside. No confidence motion passed is legal and it is confirmed.” 2. The learned Single Judge also in para 16 observed as under:- “16) In these circumstances, petitioner has failed to make out a case on fact that he was not served with notice, and he did not know that motion was being considered and, therefore, he could not attend the meeting. The denial of opportunity to speak in the meeting is, thus, the petitioner's own making, and petition does not call for interference.” 3. After considering the rival contentions as raised, we find that the concerned respondents have complied with all the requisite formalities and ultimately no confidence motion was passed against the appellant on 29.10.2007. The 4 submissions, based upon Indubai Vedu Khairnar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra & Ors; 2003 (2) Bom. C. R. 239 (Single Bench), therefore, in no way supports the case of the petitioner/appellant with regard to the service of notice upon his wife saying that the notice should be served on the Sarpanch as contemplated in Sub Rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upasarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 (For short “No Confidence Motion Rules”). In the present facts and circumstances of the case, as rightly observed by the Commissioner and noted by the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to accept that any illegality is committed by the respondents-Authority before calling and conducting the no confidence motion against the appellants. 4. In the present case, the notice in absence of Sarpanch could have been affixed on the door of the house but on wife's request, it was served upon her by the Peon that itself cannot be a reason to challenge the legally passed no 5 confidence motion by thumping majority. It is difficult to accept and there is no such case made out that there was no notice of such meeting and/or motion. The only grievance is that the notice was served upon the wife and, therefore, the whole proceeding including the no confidence motion should be quashed and set aside. There is no force in this contention and was rightly rejected by both the Courts. 5. In view of the reasonings given above, no case is made out that admitted service of such notice causes any prejudice to the appellant. Therefore, there is no case made out to interfere with the finding given by the Courts below. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE kahale