1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PEITITON NO.3552 of 2010 Gamesh Ramchandra Sawant ..vs.. The Additional Commr.Amravati and ors. =-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.P.B.Patil Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.S.V.Bhutada, Adv. for resp.5 to 12. Mr.Thakre, AGP for respondent 1 to 3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 24, 2010. Heard Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Thakre, learned AGP for respondent no.1 to 3 and Mr.Bhutada, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 to 12. Advocate Patil has challenged concurrent orders upholding motion of no confidence against petitioner – Saranch on three counts. First one is that the motion was neither proposed nor seconded by anybody in the meeting. Second one is that the petitioner did not get an opportunity as contemplated by Section 33 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act and last one is – meeting has been conducted on public holiday. By placing reliance upon judgment of the 2 learned Single Judge of this court reported at 2010(4) Mh.L.J.497 (Vijay Ramchandra Katkar ..vs.. Group Gram Panchayat, Pali and ors.), the learned counsel contends that in absence of any specific procedure in no confidence motion rules, the procedure prescribed by Bombay Village Panchayat Meeting Rules, 1959 is applicable and hence every motion must first be moved by somebody, seconded by some other person and then only it can form a valid subject for discussion in the meeting. As this has not been done, the proceedings as recorded are invalid. As motion was never moved, the petitioner did not get any opportunity to defend. Lastly, as the meeting was presided over by respondent no.3 – Tahsildar, who was acting in discharge of his official duties, meeting could not have been conducted on public holiday. The learned AGP as also Advocate Bhutada distinguished the reported judgment. They urged that here the procedure has been followed and the petitioner was given full opportunity. They rely upon proceedings as recorded and point out that there is no objection about correctness thereof. With the assistance of respective counsel for respective parties, I perused the proceedings. It appears that at the commencement of the meeting the petitioner raised some objections and those objections were rejected. The objections were in writing and his contentions were rejected by the Presiding Officer. Then 3 proceedings record that seven grounds given in support of motion were read out and discussed. All seven members of Grampanchayat, who were signatories to said motion supported those grounds and stated that same were correct. The petitioner then submitted an application in writing and contended that as majority was on his side, the voting should be undertaken by secrete ballot. That request was rejected and by show of hands the majority has been ascertained. The petitioner alone opposed the motion while remaining seven members voted in favour of it. The post of Sarpanch was for reserved category and requisite majority was 2/3rd i.e. six out of nine. As seven voted in favour of motion, resolution has been approved. Entire proceedings, therefore, show that the petitioner was given full opportunity and he was also given time to file his objections in writing. Those objections were considered and rejected. The contention that the petitioner did not get appropriate opportunity is, therefore, without any substance. Even the objection that even meeting could not have been conducted on holiday is rejected. Except for contending that as respondent no.3 was acting in performance of his duties, meeting could not have been conducted on holiday, no other reason is assigned as to why such meeting cannot be conducted on a holiday. All members were present and nobody has made a grievance that because meeting was arranged on a holiday some prejudice is caused to them. In absence of 4 such argument, it is apparent that the technical contention sought to be raised cannot be accepted. In reported judgment grievance of Sarpanch was of grant of no opportunity to him as per Section 33 of Bombay Village Panchayats Act. While looking into said grievance, this court has found that the motion is required to be moved and then seconded and then it can form a subject-matter for discussion in the meeting. Here the discussion undertaken is not in dispute and this court has already found that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself. Hence, mere failure to record and absence of proposer or seconder cannot be held to be fatal to such motion when it is passed by requisite majority. The judgment, therefore, has no application in the present matter. The authorities have applied their mind and found no substance in the objection raised by the petitioner. I find no case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE chute