*1* wp.4750.11.935.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4750 OF 2011 Supriya Shivaji Hanjankar (Sarpanch). ..Petitioner -Versus- The Additional Konkan Commissioner and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Balkrishna D. Joshi, for the Petitioner. Mr.L.S.Thakur with Ms.Kshitija Wadatkar i/b Global Juris Consults, for the Respondent Nos.6 to 10. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 12. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 09th August, 2011. P.C.: 1 The Petitioner is a lady Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat, Guramwadi, taluka : Malwan, district : Sindhudurg. She has been removed by passing a no confidence motion. The dispute raised in that behalf has been dismissed by the Collector. The order of the Collector has been confirmed by the Commissioner. 2 The only contention raised before me by Mr.Joshi in support of this Writ Petition is that the Petitioner is a lady Sarpanch and she was served a notice by the Tahasildar stating therein that the signatories to the said notice are moving a no confidence motion for the reasons that the Petitioner does not take the members into confidence, therefore, they have lost faith in the Petitioner. But, when the meeting was convened and at the venue when the members gathered and the discussion started, the issues raised were purely personal inasmuch as one of the participant *2* wp.4750.11.935.sxw stated that the construction made by him has been faulted by the Gram Panchayat even though he produced the necessary documents including the Will of his mother. Further, other constructions which were proceeded, it was pointed out that there is written permission from the Sarpanch, yet, the action was initiated. The Petitioner clarified immediately that one issue pertains to the period prior to her taking over as Sarpanch whereas as far as other issues are concerned, the Gram Panchayat has taken the decision and the permission was already granted by the General Body. 3 Thus, the reasons that were given in the notice were not those which came to be discussed. In other words, purely personal matters were raised, when it was expected that the House will take the issue of no confidence on account of her not taking the members into confidence and for that reason, the developmental work is suffering adversely. The process is vitiated because the discussion must center around the reasons which are stated in the notice moving the no confidence motion. If other matters, purely personal, are taken up for discussion, then, the Petitioner cannot effectively participate and put forth her version or case. In these circumstances, the impugned order be set aside. 4 Reliance was placed upon a decision of this Court which is reported in 1965 Mh.L.J. (Note) 102 (Laxman v/s Gram Panchayat Mangladevi). It has also been brought to my notice by Mr.Joshi, that a division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nimba Rajaram Mali v/s Collector, Jalgaon & others, in Writ Petition No.2931/1998 decided on 23.07.1998, takes contrary view. 5 Having perused the petition and annexures thereto with the assistance of Mr.Joshi, so also, the decisions brought to my notice, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction. The Petitioner is a lady Sarpanch. She was sought to be removed by passing *3* wp.4750.11.935.sxw the no confidence motion. It is not her case that she did not receive the notice from the authority convening the meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion. It is her grievance that the notice which was served on her contained one reason for proposing to move the motion against her, whereas, in the actual meeting, something else and purely personal was discussed. The settled view is that no reasons are required to be given and even if the notice of no confidence motion is to be given in the requisite form prescribed by the rules, the rule in that behalf insofar as the reasons are concerned, cannot be said to be mandatory. In other words, the notice is not vitiated for want of reasons. This is in consonance with the settled principles that there is difference between a motion of no confidence and the motion of censure. The no confidence motion is to express lack of confidence of the House or members in the leader, namely, Sarpanch. That is not to be equated with the disciplinary matters. There is no stigma attached. Therefore, it is not as if the reasons have to be assigned or that if some reasons are assigned, the discussion must be restricted to them alone. Ultimately, this is a democratic way of expressing lack of confidence in leader/Sarpanch. The Act and rule permits convening of meeting to pass such motion. If all requirements stipulated are complied with, then, the persons like the Petitioner will have to abide by the wishes of majority and cannot find fault therewith on technical pleas. In the instant case, there is no prejudice caused to the Petitioner because she has received notice, she has participated in the discussion and placed her version before the House. Despite her clarification, the House was not convinced and the House has with requisite majority removed her. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the order of the Collector and that of the Additional Commissioner refusing to take cognizance of the dispute and appeal. To my mind, it is by applying well *4* wp.4750.11.935.sxw settled principles and particularly laid down in a division bench judgment of Nimba Rajaram Mali (supra) that the authorities have refused to interfere. The Writ Petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)