- 1 - wp-7904.10.sxw ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7904 OF 2010 Shri Shripati Bhau Sutar. .. Petitioner Vs Tahsildar, Taluka Panhala, District­Kolhapur and Others. .. Respondents ­­ Shri P.D. Dalvi for the Petitioner. Shri S.N. Bhosale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Shri H.S. Venegavkar for the Respondent Nos.5 to 13. ­­ CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 22ND DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Divisional Commissioner upholding the legality and validity of Motion of No Confidence passed against the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of a Village Panchayat established under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” ). A Motion of No Confidence was moved against the Petitioner on 11th May, 2010. On the basis of the notice/requisition given by some members of Village Panchayat for moving the Motion of No - 2 - wp-7904.10.sxw Confidence against the Petitioner, the Tahsildar convened a special meeting of the Village Panchayat on 14th May, 2010. The 7 members of the Village Panchayat had signed the Motion of No Confidence. In the said meeting, the Motion of No Confidence was passed against the Petitioner by the requisite majority. 3. The Petitioner filed a dispute before the District Collector in accordance with Sub­section (3­B) of Section 35 of the said Act raising an objection to the Resolution passed on 14th May, 2010. By the impugned judgment and order dated 31st July, 2010, the Additional Collector, Kolhapur, rejected the dispute application. The order of the Additional Collector has been confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune, in an appeal preferred by the Petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayat Sarpancha and Upasarpancha ( No Confidence Motion ) Rules, 1975 ( hereinafter referred to as “the No Confidence Motion Rules” ) and in particular Sub­rule (2) of Rule 2 thereof. He submitted that the Respondent Nos. 6 to 13 who had submitted a notice of moving No Confidence had not submitted the requisite number of copies of the notice to the Tahsildar as required by Rule 2 of No Confidence Motion Rules. He submitted that the copies of No Confidence Motion ought to have been served by the Tahsildar to all the members of the Village Panchayat. He submitted that the notice of the - 3 - wp-7904.10.sxw meeting convened to consider No Confidence Motion should have been in accordance with the Sub­rule (2) of Rule 2 of the said No Confidence Motion Rules inasmuch as a copy of the Motion of No Confidence moved by Respondent Nos. 6 to 13 was not served to the Petitioner. He submitted that Sub­rule (2) of Rule 2 is mandatory in nature and the said aspect has not been considered by both the authorities. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has placed on record a certified copy of the notes recorded by the Additional Collector and pointed out that the said contention regarding failure to supply 7 additional copies of the Motion of No Confidence was specifically raised during the course of hearing before the learned Additional Collector. He submitted that this aspect has not been dealt with by the Appellate Authority, though it was raised specifically. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The Motion of No Confidence was passed against the Petitioner. The 7 members voted against the Petitioner and only 2 members voted in favour of the Petitioner. It is not the case of the Petitioner that he was not served with the notice of special meeting convened for the purposes of considering the Motion of No Confidence. His submission is that the Respondent Nos.6 to 13 did not file on record the 7 extra copies of the Motion of No Confidence and along with the notice of the special meeting, a copy of the said No Confidence Motion ought to have been served to the Petitioner. - 4 - wp-7904.10.sxw 6. It must be observed here that in the case of Arjun Sambhaji Khade & Others v. Mangal Ankush Kharmate & Others, (2003 (Supp.) BCR 552 ) as well as in the case of Yamunabai Laxman Chavan & Ors v. Sarubai Tukaram Jadhav & Ors., [(2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 1004], this Court has held that Rule 2(2) of the No Confidence Motion Rules is directory in nature and not mandatory. In the present case, admittedly, the Petitioner was served with the notice of the special meeting. The Petitioner remained present in the meeting and participated in the proceedings of the meeting. Therefore, there is no prejudice to the Petitioner. Moreover, 7 members voted against the Petitioner and only 2 including the Petitioner voted against the No Confidence Motion. 7. It is true that the Appellate Authority has not specifically considered this aspect agitated by the Petitioner. However, this Court has held that the requirement prescribed by the Rule 2(2) of the No Confidence Motion Rules is directory and not mandatory. In the present case, there is no prejudice to the Petitioner on account of alleged non­compliance with the said Rule. 8. Hence, there is no merit in the Petition and the same is accordingly rejected with no orders as to costs. JUDGE