1 wp3027.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3027 OF 2010 Shivanand Gurusiddha Mali ...Petitioner vs. Ravasaheb Siddappa Jamgod & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Nilesh Wable for the petitioner Mr.Manoj A. Patil for the respondent Nos.1 to 10 Mr.Suresh Bhosale, A.G.P for respondent nos.12 to 15 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 P.C. 1 By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of no confidence motion passed against him. The petitioner was a Sarpanch of village panchayat against whom the motion of no confidence was passed on 26th November 2009 by majority of ten against one. 2 The motion of no confidence passed against the petitioner was challenged by the petitioner by raising a dispute under sub-section 3(B) of section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act,1958 (Hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The Collector upheld the validity of no confidence motion. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal which has been dismissed. 3 The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that out of ten members who voted in support of the no confidence motion, seven had incurred disqualification under section 14 r/w section 16 of the 2 wp3027.sxw said Act in as much as the said members had not paid the gram panchayat taxes. He submitted that as out of ten members who voted against the petitioner, seven already stood disqualified the by the operation of law. There was no requisite majority for passing the motion of no confidence. 4 I have considered the submissions. The case of the petitioner is that in view of section 16 (1) (a), seven members have incurred disqualification and therefore, they were disabled from continuing as a members. There is a dispute as to whether the said members had incurred disqualification. In view of sub section 2 of section 16 of the said Act, only the Collector could have decided the question as to whether there is any disqualification incurred. Sub-section 2 of section 16 of the said Act provides that until the Collector decides the question, the members concerned shall not be disabled from continuing as the members. There is nothing on record to show that any application was made to the Collector or that the Collector has decided the question of disqualification. 5 In the circumstances, it cannot be said that seven out of ten members had incurred disqualification. Hence, there is no merit in the petition and the same is rejected. JUDGE