wp7899-7854-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7899 OF 2010 Sandip S. Parab & Ors .. Petitioners versus Vijay R. Katkar & Ors .. Respondents Mr.M.M. Sathaye for the petitioners. Mr.C.G.Gavnekar for respondent No.1. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, Addl.G.P with Mr.S.N.Bhosle, A.G.P for respondent Nos.8 to 11. ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.7854 OF 2010 Vijay R. Katkar .. Petitioner versus Group Gram Panchayat, Pali & Ors .. Respondents Mr.C.G.Gavnekar for the petitioner. Mr.M.M.Sathaye for respondent Nos.2,3, 5 to 10, 12, 14 and 15. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, Addl. G.P with Mr.S.N.Bhosle, A.G.P for respondent Nos.18 to 21. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 22nd JUNE 2011. P.C.: . Having heard Mr.Sathye at some length and taking note of his grievance that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court wp7899-7854-10.doc 2 does not permit the exercise undertaken by the Tahsildar, I am of the view that in the larger interest of justice, no interference is called for. The Commissioner has invited attention of the Tahsildar and all concerned to the order and direction in Writ Petition No.10457 of 2009 dated 6th May 2010 whereunder the Tahsildar, Pali Sudhagad was directed to summon the members who were present at the meeting dated 2nd September 2009 by appropriate notice to consider no confidence motion. Notice has been received by them on 28th August 2009. Yet, in the same order, it has been held that the Tahsildar was following the procedure in Rules 17 to 27 of the Meeting Rules. It is stated that the direction was not to give notice to all members but to only those who were present at the earlier meeting held on 2nd September 2009. The Commissioner has construed this direction to mean that the Tahsildar must give notice to 12 members who have attended the earlier meeting. However, he did not comply with the latter part of the direction which was by way of abundant caution. In the opinion of the Commissioner, if this direction was by way of abundant caution, yet, there is a mandate to comply with the same but this aspect has not been considered by the wp7899-7854-10.doc 3 Collector at all, then, in the peculiar facts of this case and to give fair and just chance to all appearing in the main proceedings arising out of the no confidence motion, he thought it fit to remand the case to the Collector. That would have enabled the parties to argue and the Collector to render a finding and definite conclusion as to whether the directions of this Court read as a whole, demand strict compliance or substantial compliance therewith is permissible. In the light of this opinion, there is no reason to interfere. Petition is dismissed. 2 In all fairness, Mr.Gavnekar invited my attention to the direction issued by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Konkan dated 27th September 2010 that the Tahsildar should convene the meeting in terms of this Court’s direction. 3 Reading the order of the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division in its entirety, it is difficult to uphold this direction because the Commissioner was seized of an appeal challenging the order of the Commissioner refusing to interfere with the no confidence motion. While deciding such an appeal, it was wp7899-7854-10.doc 4 permissible for the Additional Commissioner in the peculiar facts only to decide as to whether the directions of this Court have been complied with or not. If the Additional Commissioner was of the opinion that the directions have not been complied with prima facie and, therefore, the order of the Collector is not sustainable to that extent, his plain duty was to remand the case to the Collector for fresh consideration of the Appeal filed by the appellant under section 35(3A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. He could not have directed convening of meeting going by the plain language of the statute. In these circumstances, the order under challenge is modified to the extent that there is no necessity for the Tahsildar to convene the meeting but the matter stands remanded to the Collector for deciding the aspect as to whether the no confidence was validly passed and whether the order and directions of this Court have been complied with. Needless to clarify that any observation and finding of the Commissioner shall be taken as tentative and not binding on the Collector. Equally, this Court’s disinclination to interfere shall not be construed as rendering a finding that the order and directions of this Court dated 6th May 2010 in the aforementioned writ wp7899-7854-10.doc 5 petition have not been complied with. All contentions in that behalf, of both sides are kept open. Writ petition is disposed off in the above terms. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)