1 LPA NO.146/10 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3203 OF 2010 Shri Subhash Jethu Patil & Ors. .. Appellants Vs Shri Yogesh Vithal Lahane & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri C.G. Gavanekar with Shri G.S. Hiranandani for the Appellants. Smt. Leena R. Sawant for Respondent Nos.1 to 9. Shri S.N. Bhosale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 11 and 12. -- CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J DATE : 2ND JULY, 2010 P.C. . This Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 4th May, 2010 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's writ petition in which the appellant/petitioner had challenged the orders of the Collector, Raigad and Commissioner, Konkan Division, rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to the decision of Tahsildar holding "no confidence motion" passed against the appellant as Sarpanch of village Bhingar. Nine members of Gram Panchayat, which had in all 11 members, submitted a requisition to the Collector on 9th November, 2009 for holding a meeting to discuss 'no confidence motion' which they proposed to move. The Tahsildar 2 LPA NO.146/10 accordingly convened a meeting on 13th November, 2009 at which the petitioner as well as other members of the village Panchayat were present and the Tahsildar presided over the meeting. In that meeting, after the proponents of the resolution spoke in support of their allegations against the appellant/petitioner, the Tahsildar gave an opportunity to the appellant to express his views. After the said discussion was over, motion was put to vote and carried by a majority of 9 versus 2. 2. The appellant's challenge to the said decision of Tahsildar was negatived by the Collector and the Commissioner, Konkan Division. In a writ petition before the learned Single Judge, the appellant contended that the reason on which no confidence motion was discussed by the requisitionists at the meeting was different from the reason indicated in the requisition notice, and therefore, the appellant had suffered prejudice. 3. Learned Single Judge, after going through the minutes of the meeting, held that the allegations discussed at the meeting were substantially covered by the reasons indicated in the requisition notice. While noting that some other reasons were also discussed, the learned Single Judge observed as follows: ".....requisition of a meeting to discuss a no confidence motion cannot be equated to a charge at a criminal trial or a departmental proceeding and therefore, has to be loosely interpreted. The members are also not expected to articulate the reasons, or to prove that the reasons 3 LPA NO.146/10 which they perceive are correct. The voting at the meeting is based on the perception of the members about the conduct of the person who is voted out. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Collector or the Commissioner erred in rejecting the petitioner's dispute." The learned Single Judge accordingly dismissed the writ petition and observed that in a democracy, verdict of majority has to be respected and technicalities cannot be used for defeating will of the majority. 6. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tahsildar did not follow all the applicable rules prescribed by the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959 in as much as after the motion was moved, it was not seconded by any of the members present and therefore, in the absence of the prescribed procedure having not been followed, the decision of Tahsildar declaring motion having been carried, was not in accordance with law. 7. In the first place, no objection was raised by any of the members present at the meeting that the correct procedure was not being followed. Secondly, this objection was not raised either before the Collector or before the Commissioner or before the learned Single Judge. Thirdly, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Krishnakant Mehta vs State of Maharashtra, reported in 2000(4) MhLJ 197 in Writ Petition No. 4 LPA NO.146/10 1966 of 2000 decided on 3rd May, 2000 and the decisions of the two learned Single Judges of this Court, one in Writ Petition No.6873 of 2008 decided on 24th October, 2008 ( Mr. Nivrutti Kashinath Bansode & Anr. v. Gramsevak, Grampanchayat, Nazara & Ors.) and another in Writ Petition No.9819 of 2009 decided on 18th January, 2010 ( Govind Nivrutti Hipparkar v. Tahasildar, Taluka Sangola & Ors. ) is also misplaced. In all the three decisions, this Court had considered the question whether a resolution of no confidence passed at a meeting during the course of which members constituting the Village Panchayat were not permitted to speak, would be invalid or whether a resolution of no confidence passed at a meeting during which the Sarpanch against whom the motion is moved is not given an opportunity to speak would be invalid. 8. All the three decisions of this Court emphasize that there must be a debate and discussion at the meeting before any motion of no confidence is carried and that the Tahsildar cannot take up the stand that in absence of request of Sarpanch against whom the motion is moved, he was not bound to give such an opportunity. This Court has held that in a democracy the Tasildar is not to wait till Sarpanch has made a request to speak at a meeting and that when the proponents of the motion want to speak in favour of the motion, Tahsildar must give an opportunity to Sarpanch to address at a meeting. In the facts of the present case, as duly reflected in the minutes of the meeting, the appellant/petitioner was not only given an opportunity to speak but the appellant/petitioner did express 5 LPA NO.146/10 his view at the meeting and thereafter the motion was carried by a majority of 9 versus 2. Therefore, the statutory requirement of motion being carried out by 2/3rd majority was duly satisfied. 9. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and therefore the same is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J