- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 3203 OF 2010 Subhash Jethu Patil .. Petitioner Vs. Yogesh Vitthal Lahane & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. P. M. Patil & Ashok Gade, for the Petitioner. Mrs. Leena Sawant with Amit Karande, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 10. Mr. S. N. Bhosle, AGP for Respondent Nos. 11 & 12. CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : MAY 4, 2010. P.C. : 1. This petition by Sarpanch of village Bhingar, questions the orders passed by the Collector Raigad, rejecting his dispute and judgment and order passed by the Commissioner, Konkan Division, dismissing his appeal against Collector’s order. 2. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. Nine members of the Gram panchayat which had in all 11 members, gave a requisition to the Collector on 9th November 2009 for holding a meeting to discuss ‘no confidence motion’ which they proposed to - 2 - move. The Tahsildar accordingly convened a meeting on 13th November 2009 at which the petitioner as well as other members of the Panchayat were present. In that meeting proponents of the resolution spoke in support of their allegations that the petitioner was dealing with affairs of the Gram Panchayat without taking them into confidence and that he was acting as per his own sweet will. One Rajaram Gangaram Kathora stated that the Sarpanch does not take members in confidence while undertaking the development works, adjourns the general meetings, does not show accounts, does not pay the bills which the Gram Panchayat was supposed to pay and therefore, it was necessary for the Gram Panchayat to pass no confidence motion. One Nivrutti Namdeo Shendre who was the next member to speak at the meeting opined that the expectations of the voters are not fulfilled, the meetings of the Gram Panchayat are not held on time; the petitioner does not take other members into confidence and hence no confidence motion should be passed. 3. Thereafter the petitioner replied stating that the allegations were not correct, meetings of the Panchayat were held from time to time, water bills had been paid on time only once, he had left the meeting of Panchayat because his relative had expired; he conducts business of the - 3 - Panchayat by taking members into confidence; that the resolutions passed by the Panchayat show that every resolution was proposed and seconded by some member or the other and therefore, it could not be said that petitioner was acting without taking members into confidence. He stated that motion was moved due to political motives and that therefore, motion should be defeated. Thereafter the motion was put to vote. Eight members of the Panchayat voted in favour of the motion and three against it. Since the Panchayat had 11 members, the motion was carried by 2/3rd majority. 4. The petitioner filed a dispute before the Collector stating that the requisition dated 9-11-2009 and the actual discussion of no confidence motion in the meeting dated 13-11-2009, showed that the reason for which no confidence motion was moved was different from the reasons discussed at the meeting. Had the petitioner been made aware in advance of the allegations which were to be discussed, he would have been able to answer those charges effectively. Therefore, according to him, the motion was wrongly held to have been passed by the Tahsildar. He had also raised some other grounds which have not been pressed, in this petition. The Collector rejected the petitioner’s dispute and therefore, the petitioner approached the Commissioner, who - 4 - dismissed the petitioner’s appeal by the impugned judgment. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only grievance made before me is that the reason for which no confidence motion was moved by requisition dated 9th November 2009 was at variance with the allegations discussed in the meeting on 13th November 2009. I have already recounted in the preceding paragraphs the substance of discussion that took place at the meeting. It may be seen from the requisition that grievance of the members of the Gram Panchayat was that the petitioner does not take them in confidence and deals with the affairs of the Gram Panchayat as per his own sweet will. The speeches of Rajaram Gangaram and Nivrutti Namdeo who were the only members who spoke in favour of the motion, reiterate this aspect, adding that the petitioner was not paying bills of the Gram Panchayat, did not show accounts and adjourned Gram Panchayat meetings and also did not hold meetings in time. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submitted that had these additional grounds been incorporated in the requisition dated 9th November 2009, the petitioner could have been prepared to defend himself on these grounds. He was taken by surprise when the members spoke about these allegations and therefore, he submits that the vote which followed this discussion must be held to - 5 - be vitiated due to the members, being swayed by allegations which were not included in the requisition. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent members opposed these contentions. 7. In my view the requisition need not elaborate the reasons for moving a no confidence motion. It is enough if it gives an idea of the reason which dominates the mind of members in moving the no confidence motion. The requisition of a meeting for discussing a no confidence motion cannot be equated to a charge in a criminal case or departmental inquiry, which the Sarpanch is required to defend. The deliberations in a meeting held for discussing no confidence motion cannot be examined with forensic precision since the body is a political body, where discussions which takes place have political consideration. Even in Courts it is not unusual for lawyers, or even judges, to travel beyond the issues which are required to be decided. Therefore, even if a member may have made a stray reference to non payment of a bills, or not holding the meeting on time, it cannot amount to introduction of a new cause, which is not covered by the requisition. It is not proper for the petitioner to say that the petitioner had not replied to the new charges leveled against him. He had refuted them. Therefore, it cannot be said - 6 - that the petitioner was prejudiced or that the resolution passed was vitiated for want of an adequate opportunity to the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of – Shri Ashok Krishnakant Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2004(4) Bom.C.R. 724]. The learned counsel drew my attention to paragraph 4 of the said judgment which read as under- “The weight of numbers is not an answer to a fundamental defect such as this and the Court ought not to countenance a suppression of the right to speak by a supposed justification on the basis of the number who cast their lot in support of a resolution. The exclusion of members from addressing the Village Panchayat was a fundamental flaw in the proceedings which would invalidate the resolution of no confidence.” 9. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the respondents, these observations came in the context of failure of the Presiding Officer to afford an opportunity to the members to deliberate upon the motion. Therefore, since in the case in hand there was enough discussion on the motion of no confidence, these observations are not helpful to the petitioner. In a democracy verdict of majority has to be - 7 - respected and technicalities cannot be used for defeating will of the majority. At the cost of repetition, it has to be pointed out that 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 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. . Writ petition is therefore, dismissed. Sd/- [R. C. CHAVAN, J.]