SSK/955 1 WP/7690.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7690 OF 2011 Shri Raosaheb Sampat Derle ....Petitioner Versus The Tahsildar, Niphad & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. M. S. Karnik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Kishor Patil with Mr. H.E.Palwe, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 to 13. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 10th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr.Karnik and Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petition pertains to the proceedings of No Confidence Motion. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Village – Shingave, Taluka Niphad, District Nashik. Requisition was given on 12th May, 2011 by the requisite number of members to the Tahsildar for calling a Special Meeting to discuss the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. On 18th May, 2011, the Tahsildar convened the Special Meeting. In this meeting, No Confidence Motion against the petitioner was passed by two-third majority. The validity of the Special Meeting and No SSK/955 2 WP/7690.11 Confidence Motion is upheld by the Collector and Commissioner in a dispute application and appeal respectively, and therefore, the present petition. 3. The only point which is argued by Mr.Karnik, learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier No Confidence Motion was passed against the petitioner on 5th April, 2011 by two-third majority. However, same was set- aside by the Collector in exercise of powers under Section 35(3-B) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short “the Act”). In these circumstances, he submits that the 2nd Motion for No Confidence could not have been initiated within a period of one year from 5th April, 2011. The submission is without any merit. Sub-section 3-A of Section 35 of the Act shows that if the motion is not moved or is not carried by majority of not less than two-third of total number of members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the Panchayat, no such fresh motion shall be moved against the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch within a period of one year from the date of such special meeting. 4. In order to attract the provisions of Section 35(3-A) of the Act, the petitioner must show that the motion either was not moved or was not carried. In the present case, the Motion of No Confidence was already carried in Special Meeting held on 5th April, 2011. However, for technical SSK/955 3 WP/7690.11 reasons, same was set-aside by the Collector. A question similar to one involved in the present petition fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in Ramesh Vs. Sheshrao & Ors. reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1607. The Apex Court, in this case, categorically held that if the 1st Motion of No Confidence is held invalid for want of notice, same cannot be treated as a motion not moved or not carried by requisite number of members. The Apex Court, in these circumstances, held that the 2nd Motion passed within one year is not barred by Section 35(3-A) of the Act. The present case is covered by the said decision of the Apex Court and therefore, in such circumstances, no interference in the impugned order is called for. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)