1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4690 OF 2008 Sunil Yawale ..vs.. The Additional Commissioner & ors =================================== CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 26.2.2009 Heard Shri Chopde, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Jaiswal, A.G.P. for respondent no. 1 to 3, Shri Mardikar, Advocate for respondent no. 4 to 10. None present for other respondents. 2] The grievance of the petitioner is that the no confidence motion was moved against him, he being Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Deodari. The meeting for consideration of no confidence was to be held on 28.8.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not served for that meeting nor respondent no.11 was served. According to him, the proceedings of the meeting of no confidence motion dated 28.8.2008 were totally illegal and therefore any resolution passed therein should not be treated as legal. Consequently he needs to be declared as not unseated and therefore allowed to continue as Sarpanch of village Deodari. 3] He had made a grievance before Collector in B.V.P. Act, 1958 Section 35(3)(B)/Devdari/2/2008-09. Learned Additional Collector found that there was no substance in the dispute and therefore, he dismissed the prayer of the petitioner. 2 4] Petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Commissioner, Amravati passed the impugned order. He also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 5] As stated above, the main grievance of the petitioner is that he was not served with the notice of the special meeting called for consideration of no confidence motion. It is also his grievance that even respondent no.11 was not served. As already stated above, respondent no.11 is not appearing before this Court today to raise his contentions/ objections. There is no reply or petition filed by respondent no.1 for seeking any relief in this regard. 6] Therefore, the main question would be whether the petitioner was served with the notice of the said meeting. 7] Learned A.G.P. has produced record of the said special meeting which contains the documents of service of notice to the petitioner, which apparently bears his signature and therefore, prima facie it appears that he was served with the notice of the said meeting. 8] Learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 to 10 has also pointed out that the petitioner had not raised this grievance before the Additional Collector at the first instance. When the fact of service of notice is apparent, the grievance of the petitioner in this 3 petition does not survive and is not substantiated. The petition therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 8] By order of this court dated 16.2.2009, this court has observed: “While considering the reliefs claimed in the writ petition & considering the fact that the Gram Panchayat is a democratic entity, it was specifically asked to the petitioner as to how many members are still supporting him in the gram panchayat of 9 members, particularly when six members who are respondents before this court, are not even today not supporting him. Petitioner is unable to answer the query. In these circumstances, considering the democratic values, it is necessary to grant opportunity to the petitioner to consider, as to whether he should opt for resigning the post.” It was also asked to the petitioner that he should make a submission as to how many members in the said gram panchayat are supporting him; when 6 members of the said gram panchayat were respondents before this Court and they were apparently not supporting the petitioner. It was obvious that the petitioner is not holding majority in the gram panchayat; for being a Sarpanch and to carry out his duties as Sarpanch. It was expected that the petitioner should consider to opt for resigning from the said post if he was not holding majority in the gram panchayat. As he did not consider the same and opted for hearing the petition, the petition was heard on merits. Now the petition is required to be dismissed for want of any merit. Hence the same should be with some costs which is quantified to Rs.500/-. Interim order stands vacated. Costs 4 be deposited in office. If it is deposited, the same be made over to Legal Services Authorities, High Court, Nagpur. JUDGE smp