1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 384 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 3133 of 2010 (D) Babulal S/o Deoman Chourpagar, Aged major, Occu. Sarpanch, Gram panchayat, Golegaon, Tah. Daryapur, Dist. Amravati. ....APPELLANT. ...VERSUS... 1] The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2] The Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, Tah. and Dist. Amravati. 3] The Collector, Tah. and Dist. Amravati. 4] The Tahsildar, Daryapur, Tah. Daryapur, Dist. Amravati. 5] Shri Vishwanath Ghuge, Aged major, Occu. Tahsildar, Daryapur, Tah. Daryapur, Dist. Amravati. 6] Gram Panchayat, Golegaon, Tah. Daryapur, Dist. Amravati, through its Secretary, Neelesh Ashtikar, Golegaon, Tah. Daryapur, Dist. Amravati. 7] Neelesh Ashtikar, Aged Major, The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Golegaon, Tah. Daryapur, Dist. Amravati. 2 8] Bhaiyya Shyamrao Atambar, Aged major, Occu. Upsarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Golegaon, Tah. Daryapur, Dist. Amravati. 9] Smt. Sukeshani Sudhir Chourpagar 10] Gajanan S/o Himartrao Deshmukh 11] Sou. Wanmala W/o Dadarao Solanke 12] Sou. Leelabai W/o Narayan Gawande, Respondent nos.9 to 12 all major, R/o Golegaon, Tah. Daryapur, Dist. Amravati. ....RESPONDENTS =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. S.V.Sohoni, Advocate for appellant. C ORAM : D.B.BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 3rd August, 2010. 1] Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2] This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 14/7/2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3133 of 2010, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been rejected. 3] The writ petition was directed against the orders passed by the authorities below, by which a challenge to the ‘No Confidence Motion’, passed against the appellant was rejected. The learned Single Judge, while rejecting the writ 3 petition, has made the following observations : “However, after hearing him, I find that the meeting was presided over by the Tahsildar and Tahsildar has recorded that the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain. It is not the ground raised by the petitioner anywhere that Tahsildar has recorded incorrect or false proceedings. The grudge against Up-Sarpanch or Secretary by itself is not relevant as Motion of No Confidence was submitted as per law and has been considered in accordance with the provisions. There is no other defect in the resolution as passed.” 4] In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has, however, urged a contention which was not urged/argued either before the learned Single Judge or before the authorities below. He submitted that the special meeting dated 15/3/2010, in which ‘No Confidence Motion’ was passed, was not legal in view of the fact that it was convened within less than one year from the date of the earlier special meeting dated 26/5/2009. This meeting (dated 26.5.2009) was also called for considering no confidence motion against the appellant. 5] It appears that the meeting for considering no confidence motion against the appellant was initially called on 05/3/2009. However, in the said meeting the motion was not moved. Thereafter, the second meeting was convened on 26/5/2009, in which “no confidence motion” was carried by majority. That motion was, however, set aside by respondent no.2 - Additional Commissioner, 4 Amravati Division, Amravati vide order dated 24/9/2009 holding that the second meeting held on dated 26/5/2009 was called within less than one year, as contemplated by sub-section 3(A) of Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short “the said Act”), and hence, was illegal. In view thereof, the third special meeting for considering no confidence motion was called on 15/3/2010, in which the motion was carried by majority. From the dates mentioned above it is clear that this third meeting was held after more than 1 year from the first meeting dated 05/3/2010. In the second meeting dated 26/5/2009 the motion was carried and, in any case, it cannot be stated that the motion was either not moved or was not carried in the said meeting as contemplated by sub- section 3(A) of Section 35 of the said Act. The period of one year, as contemplated by this provision would, therefore, not start to run from the date of the second meeting, but it would start to run from the date of the first meeting dated 05/3/2009. Sub-section 3-A of Section 35 of the said Act clearly provides that if a motion is either not moved or is not carried, no fresh motion shall be moved against the Sarpanch within a period of one year from the date of last special meeting. 5] In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale