1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 3682/2007 (Sau. Meenabai Himmatrao Bobade vs. Addl.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: Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED: 15 th JANUARY, 2008. *** Heard Shri Gordey, learned counsel for petitioner ; Shri Mishra, for Respondents 4 to 11 and Shri Sonak, learned AGP for Respondents 1 to 3. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Addl. Collector, Amravati, on 6.6.2007 as also the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Amravati dated 24.7.2007, whereby the proceedings filed by the petitioner against his removal from the Office of the Sarpanch, in view of no confidence motion passed against him, were dismissed. 3. In the year 2005, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch and Respondents 4 to 11 were elected as 2 members of the Gram Panchayat. It is stated in the petition that respondents 5, 8 and 10 were elected as members of the Gram Panchayat from the constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste category candidates. The case of the petitioner is that the Respondent No.6, who has developed a personal grudge against the petitioner had misled other members of the Gram Panchayat to move the no confidence motion against the petitioner. The meeting of the Gram Panchayat was held under the Chairmanship of the Tahsildar - the respondent no.3 wherein no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner on 11.4.2007. Out of eight members of Gram Panchayat, seven members had voted in favour of the motion. The petitioner being aggrieved by the removal from the Office of Sarpanch raised a dispute before the Res.No.2 - Additional Collector under section 35(3)(B) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Additional Collector, Amravati, however, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by the order dated 5 th June, 2007. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Addl. Collector which was also dismissed on 24.7.2007. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly challenged the orders passed by the two authorities on the ground that the respondents 5,8 and 10 3 were not entitled to vote in the meeting where the no confidence motion was put to vote, as respondents 5,8 and 10 were elected as members from the constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes category candidates and since they had not produced the caste validity certificates, they were automatically disqualified and ceased to be the members of the Gram Panchayat. It was, then, argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Addl. Collector was not justified in refusing to grant an adjournment to the petitioner when the petitioner's counsel was not available and proceeding with the matter to dismiss the dispute raised by the petitioner. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the orders passed by both the authorities are not reasoned orders and are, therefore liable to be set aside. 5. I have perused the impugned orders and have also heard the learned counsel for respective parties. Both the authorities have recorded that the meeting was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act and the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upsarpanch ( No confidence Motion), Rules, 1975. It is pointed out on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 by filing an affidavit-in-reply on 17.9.2007 that an application for grant of adjournment was not filed by the petitioner on 5.6.2007. It was 4 further brought to the notice of this Court by the affidavit-in-reply that the petitioner was absent on 5.6.2007 and, therefore, the Addl. Collector proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the order passed by the Addl. Collector makes a reference to the absence of the petitioner on 5.6.2007. 6. It appears from the order passed by the Addl. Collector that the allegations made against the petitioner were of serious nature and the objection raised by the petitioner about the disqualification of res.nos.5, 8 and 10 was also ill-founded. It was rightly recorded by the Addl. Collector that the respondents 5, 8 and 10 were entitled to vote in the meeting as their caste claims were not invalidated by the competent Committee. It was also recorded by the Addl. Collector that the petitioner had not produced any evidence on record to show that the signatures of some of the members were false an fabricated. After giving ample opportunity to the parties and counsel on both the sides, the Addl. Commissioner held that the no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner by more than ¾ majority. 7. It appears from the perusal of both the orders 5 that the authorities rightly came to the conclusion that there were no justifiable grounds or reasons to set aside the order of removal of the petitioner as the meeting was held in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and almost all the members of the Gram Panchayat had voted against the petitioner. The orders passed by both the authorities are reasoned orders and it also cannot be said that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the Addl. Collector as the petitioner had not remained present before the Addl. Collector when the matter was decided on 5.6.2007. It is further conspicuous to note that in the appeal memo submitted by the petitioner before the Addl Commissioner, Amravati, no ground has been raised by the petitioner about the absence of opportunity to prosecute the application before the Addl. Collector. The petitioner cannot therefore legitimately raise this ground in the instant petition as the same was not raised in the appeal memo and it does not seem to be a ground by which the petitioner was aggrieved. 8. The main submission made on behalf of the petitioner about the automatic disqualification of respondents 5, 8 and 10 is not well-founded, in as much as there cannot be an automatic disqualification of a 6 member of the Gram Panchayat on non-production of caste validity certificate but the automatic disqualification under the Act would occur in case, as has been laid down by this Court, where the caste claim of a person is negatived or the caste certificate of a person is invalidated . 9. For the reasons aforesaid, Petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE sahare