1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3861 OF 2009 Mandikini Bhaskar Aher ..Petitioner versus Tahsildar, Taluka Dindori, Dist : Nashik & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. K. S. Patil i/b. Mr. P. N. Joshi for Petitioner. Mr. S. N. Patil – AGP for the State. Mr. Sachin Gite for Respondent No. 6. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 3RD JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision passed by the Additional Collector, Nashik, on 3rd January 2009 in Dispute No. 43 of 2008 and by the Additional Commissioner’s decision dated 21st March, 2009, in Gram Panchayat Appeal No. 7 of 2009 . By these Orders, the Authorities have upheld the removal of the petitioner as a Sarpanch of the Village. A No Confidence Motion was moved at a requisitioned meeting held on 20th October 2008. Out of 13 persons present and voting, 9 persons voted against the petitioner and in favour of the No Confidence Motion. As a result, the petitioner was removed as a Sarpanch of the Village. 2 2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that under the Proviso to Section 35(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, when the post is reserved for a woman or is a Sarpanch elected in the General Category, the voting is required to be in the manner prescribed in the Proviso. He submits that not less than 3/4ths of the total number of members who are entitled to sit and vote at the meeting must vote against the petitioner. The learned Advocate points out that 3/4ths of 13 would be 9.9 and therefore the voting against the petitioner is not in the manner prescribed in the Proviso to Section 35(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. 3. The submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is fallacious. The Proviso to Section 35(3) reads as under: “(3) If the motion is carried by [a majority of not less than two-third of] [*****] the total number of the members [****] who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the panchayat or the Upa- Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall cease to hold office after seven days from the date on which the motion was carried unless he has resigned earlier or has disputed the validity of the motion so carried as provided in sub- section (3B); and thereupon the office held by such Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch shall be deemed to be vacant; [Provided that, where the office of the Sarpanch 3 being reserved for a woman, is held by a woman Sarpanch, such motion of no-confidence shall be carried only by a majority of not less than three-fourth of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the panchayat:] [Provided further that], no such motion of no- confidence shall be brought within a period of six months from the date of election of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch]:” The submission of the learned Advocate is that in two contingencies i.e. (1) where the office of the Sarpanch being reserved for a woman or (2) held by a woman Sarpanch, the vote must be by 3/4ths majority against such a Sarpanch. This interpretation placed by the learned Advocate is unsustainable. There is a coma between the two phrases being reserved for a woman, and is held by a woman Sarpanch. Reading the Proviso as a whole it would be apparent that only where the office of Sarpanch is reserved for a woman the 3/4th majority is required to approve of the removal of the Sarpanch. In a case where the Sarpanch happens to be a woman and is elected in the General Category, the rule of 3/4th majority is not applicable. 4. Petition rejected. (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.)