1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 412/2008 (Ramsing Lalman Thakre vs. Additional Commissioner, Amravati and others) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. .................................................................................................................................................................. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI , J. DATED: 1st February, 2008. *** By way of present Petition, the petitioner challenges the resolution passed by Gram Panchayat thereby passing no confidence motion against him in its meeting held on 22.2.2006; the order passed by Addl. Collector, Akola dared 4th July 2006 thereby rejecting the dispute filed by present petitioner; and the order passed by Addl. Commissioner dated 27th September, 2007 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by present petition. 2. Heard Shri P.S.Patil, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.A.S.Sonare, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 10. 3. Respondents 2 to 9 submitted a requisition to the Tahsildar, Dharni to consider no confidence motion moved 2 by them against the present petitioner and one Smt. Leelabai Dhikar who were elected earlier as Sarpanch and Upsaranch respectively. The said no confidence motion came to be passed in the meeting held on 22nd February, 2006. A dispute raised by the present petitioner against the said resolution was dismissed on 4th July 2006 and further an appeal before the Additional Commissioner was also dismissed on 27th September 2007. Being aggrieved thereby, the present Petition. 4. Shri Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the no confidence motion suffers from three mandatory violations. He submits that since the no confidence motion was to be considered against the Sarpanch and Upsarpanch, it was necessary that two separate notices were to be issued against Sarpanch and Upsarpanch. He further submits that the date is not mentioned in the requisition and as such, it cannot be said that the meeting is held within seven days as is statutory requirement. He further submits that the copy of the requisition giving the ground of no confidence is not enclosed along with the notice, thereby depriving the petitioner his valuable right of putting forth his case. He further submits that the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner suffers from vice of not giving reasons. 5. The perusal of the record would reveal that the 3 petitioner as well as Upsarpanch had been duly received with the notice of the meeting dated 22nd Feb. 2006. Not only this but the present petitioner and the Upsarpanch were very much present in the meeting ; had participated in the proceedings and after due deliberations, the motion of no confidence came to be passed by majority of 8: 3 in the Gramn Panchayat consisting of 11 members. The Apex court in the case of K Narasiahiah v. H C. Singri Gowda reported in AIR 1966 SC 330 has held that unless a prejudice is shown to have been caused to the person against whom no confidence is passed, the non-compliance with the Rules would not be a ground for interferring in the no confidence motion passed by requisite majority. In any case, in a democratic set up a person is expected to respect the mandate of majority. No prejudice of whatsoever nature could be said to be caused to the petitioner due to the alleged non-compliance of the Rules. 6. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court. Hence Petition is rejected. JUDGE sahare