1 W.P.No.9483/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9483 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.R.K.Ladda, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 13.12.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is elected as Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Dhangar Javalka. Motion of No Confidence was moved by the members of the Grampanchayat. The notice of meeting was served on all the members including the petitioner. The Grampanchayat has total seven members. Out of said seven members, six members voted in favour of the motion of No Confidence, barring the petitioner herself all the members lost confidence in the petitioner. The motion was passed by majority of 6:1. The petitioner filed a dispute before the Collector, challenging the said motion of No Confidence. The said dispute was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Respondent No.2. The 2 W.P.No.9483/11 Respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has assailed the said order in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mrs.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner had replied to the charges vide reply dated 13.5.2011 which was also served on the Tahsildar. The said reply has not been considered, nor the petitioner was allowed to participate in the debate. No debate had taken place. In view of that, the meeting of No Confidence motion stands vitiated. The learned counsel further contends that two members i.e. Seema W/o Govind Yadav and Nivrutti Dharoba Sable, have not submitted their validity certificates as is required U/s 10-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. In view of the proviso to Section 10-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, as it stood then the said two members stand disqualified. The same is a deeming provision and even till date these two persons have not submitted the validity certificates. The Tahsildar has issued letter to the petitioner stating that no such validity certificate is submitted by them. The votes of these two persons can not be counted and as such it can not be said that the motion has been passed by 2/3rd majority. According to the learned counsel, the orders impugned have not taken into consideration this aspect and the same deserve to be set aside. The motion of No Confidence fails. 4. Mrs.Ladda, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, supports the 3 W.P.No.9483/11 order. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the proceedings. On perusal of the proceedings, it is manifest that the charges have been discussed in the meeting. Even Sarpanch was present in the meeting. It does not transpire that the petitioner was prevented from putting her views. As the said charges were debated and discussed in the meeting, the necessary compliance of the Rules in that regard has been made. It can not be said that no opportunity has been given to the petitioner. 6. From the letters issued by the Tahsildar, it is evident that one Nivrutti Sable and Seema Govind Yadav have not submitted their validity certificates as provided under proviso (as it stood then) to Section 10-1A of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. Though the said proviso is couched in mandatory terms, this Court in a case of "Kumudini Balasaheb Salkar Vs. Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others" reported in 2008 (4) Mh.L.J.728, has held that the said proviso is directory and not mandatory on the ground that issuance of validity certificate is not in the hand of the candidate and it is for the appropriate Committee to decide and issue the same. Now the said proviso has been deleted but the present matter would be governed by the provision as it stood at the relevant time. 7. In view of the dictum of the learned Single Judge of this 4 W.P.No.9483/11 Court in a case of "Kumudini Balasaheb Salkar Vs. Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others" referred supra, it can not be said that for non-submission of validity certificate the disqualification is automatic. In view of the above, the arguments advanced by Mrs.Kulkarni, to that effect can not be sustained. 8. Even otherwise, the petitioner has lost the confidence of the majority of the house. 9. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.13.12.2011. asp/office/wp9483.11 5 W.P.No.9483/11