- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 3559 OF 2010 Shashikant Pandurang Patil .. Petitioner Vs. Baban Dattatraya Lohar & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. V. B. Rajure, for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit Sale, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 9. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for Respondent No.10. CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : APRIL 26, 2010. P.C. : 1. This petition filed by a Upsarpanch of village Panchayat Sagaon, questions the dismissal of his appeal by the learned Divisional Commissioner Pune, maintaining the order passed by the Additional Collector whereby the Additional Collector, upheld the unseating of petitioner on passing of a motion of ‘no confidence’. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed a proceedings against disqualification of Sarpanch as well as one Baban Shankar Patil. The learned counsel for the petitioner - 2 - fairly conceded that even if the votes of these two persons were excluded, the motion against the petitioner was carried by 2/3rd majority, as is required. Therefore, participation of Baban Dattatraya Lohar and Baban Shankar Patil at the meeting is of no consequence. 3. The learned counsel next submitted that notice of ‘no confidence motion’ mentioned two vague grounds, namely carrying out works without consulting members, and misusing and abusing the authority and obstructing the development work. He submitted that though the grounds on which ‘no confidence motion’ was moved at the meeting, were vague, the members were permitted to put up their objections about the performance of the petitioner. The proceedings had absolutely no nexus with the said grounds. The learned counsel further submitted that his client was not permitted to tender material to disprove the allegations, which had been made at the meeting. He submitted that such material had been placed on record in the appeal before the Additional Collector. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, had petitioner been informed in advance as to what the members were going to allege, he would have kept the material ready and pointed out before the Panchayat that allegations were false, so that the Panchayat could have taken a reasoned decision in respect of the acts of the - 3 - petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the Additional Collector and the Commissioner should have seen that voting at the meeting was thus without consideration of the relevant material. 4. The learned counsel, next submitted that two members of the Gram Panchayat namely Mrs. Shantabai Satish Kamble and Mrs. Sunanda Prakash Kadam who had voted in favour of the petitioner, were not allowed to speak at the meeting, and had they been allowed to speak at the meeting, the voting would have been different. For this purpose, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of – Ashok Krishnakant Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2004(4) Bom.C.R.724]. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. Firstly, it is not shown that two members had sought permission to speak and they were denied such permission at the meeting. The proceedings conducted before the Tahsildar and which had been recorded by the Tahsildar show that all the members were permitted to put up their submissions on the ‘no confidence motion’. If the two members of the Panchayat preferred to maintain a silence at the meeting, and then raised the grievance subsequently, they have to blame themselves. Therefore, on facts, the decision of the Division Bench of - 4 - this Court would be of no help tot the petitioner. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the elaboration of charges levelled against the petitioner at the meeting took him by surprise, has also to be likewise rejected. It is not possible for members of the Gram Panchayat moving a motion of no-confidence to give an elaborate of charge-sheet as in a criminal case. They had indicated as to what was the attitude of the petitioner in the conduct of the business of Gram Panchayat at the meeting. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in Tahsildar permitting elaboration of the charges levelled against the petitioner at the meeting. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner at the meeting were all false. The petitioner had with him documents to show that every high handed act which he had allegedly done, was in pursuance of the resolutions passed or permissions obtained, which had been produced before the appellate authority. The contentions of the learned counsel may be factually correct. But the Body which was supposed to take a decision was not a judicial body. It was a political decision based on the perception of those who voted at the meeting. When a political decision is taken what counts is the perception of those who vote. The persons who voted at such - 5 - meeting are not expected to give any reason as to why they are voting in a particular fashion. Therefore, whether the petitioner had good justification or not, is of no relevance, since the majority was not with him. The examination of the proceeding at the meeting where ‘no confidence motion’ is passed, would be restricted to find out whether the procedure adopted by the authority was proper or not. Neither the Collector nor the Commissioner, and not even this Court, would be entitled to go into correctness of the charges levelled or justification for passing ‘no-confidence motion’. Sufficient safe-guards have been provided by the State by insisting upon 2/3rd majority for unseating the person in the position of the petitioner. If the petitioner loses that majority, he has to go respecting the democratic verdict. . The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. Sd/- [R. C. CHAVAN, J.]