High Court
Facts
1 902-WP-1744-23.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1744 OF 2023Sau. Sushama Wasudeo Patil,Age 47 years, Occu. Social work and Household,R/o. Dahiwad, Tq. Amalner, District Jalgaon..Petitioner(Original Applicant/Appellant)Versus1.The Collector, Jalgaon,District Jalgaon2.The Tahsildar, Amalner,Tq. Amalner, District Jalgaon3.The Block Development Officer,Panchayat Samiti, Amalner,Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon4.The Village Development Officer,Gram Panchayat, DahiwadTq. Amalner, District Jalgaon5.Devanand Kapurchand BahareAe 38 years, Occu. Agri.6.Manikrao Himmatrao Patil,Age 55 years, Occu. Agri.7.Sunil Shaligram Patil,Age 48 years, Occu. Agri.8.Shivaji Suklal Pardhi,Age 28 years, Occu. Agri.9.Vaishali Prakash Mali,Age 27 years, Occu. Household10.Varsha Gulab Patil,Age 42 years, Occu. Household11.Malubai Suresh Mali,Age 46 years, Occu. Household
Legal Reasoning
4 902-WP-1744-23.odtmeeting convened by the Tahsildar on the notice of villagepanchayat members. A no confidence motion was passed againstthe petitioner by 11 votes on 15.07.2022. However, withoutratifying the said motion in the gram sabha, the resolution of noconfidence was acted upon. The petitioner had impugned theresolution before the Collector under Section 35(3)(B) of theVillage Panchayats Act. The Collector rejected the dispute on30.08.2022. The petitioner had impugned the said order beforethis Court in Writ Petition No.9106 of 2022. This Court stayed theeffect of no confidence motion observing that the petitioner shallnot be removed as Sarpanch on the basis of no confidence motionpassed until Gram Sabha ratify the motion. Thereafter, GramSabha was called for ratifying the no confidence motion passedagainst the petitioner. Meeting was convened on 12.09.2022. Thevoters were notified for the said extra ordinary meeting.3.As per Rule 35(1A) now deleted, the voting by secret ballotwas taken. 1818 voters cast votes. The authorities counted thevotes. After counting, the result was declared that there were 830votes ratifying the no confidence motion and 727 votes wereagainst the ratification. 261 votes were declared invalid. Thepetitioner who was present in the meeting raised the disputeabout validation and invalidation of the votes before the Collector,Jalgaon by the Village Panchayat Dispute No.122. The Collectorfollowed the procedure and passed the order on 09.01.2023. The 5 902-WP-1744-23.odtinvalid votes were verified. The Collector found that 114 voteswere incorrectly held invalid which were against the ratificationand 81 votes were held valid in favour ratification of the noconfidence motion. Then, the Village Panchayat Dispute No.122was decided on merit on 19.01.2023. The dispute impugning theratification of no confidence in Gram Sabha was dismissed. Againstthat order, she has filed this writ petition No.174 of 2023.4.The petitioner has impugned the order mainly on the groundthat no notice of Gram Sabha was served personally upon thepetitioner. The proceeding book is not genuine. Some personswere shown present in register, but it does not bear theirsignatures. The election process was not fair. It was biased. Therewas no correct counting of the votes. It is her indirect submissionsthat voting was done highhandedly. She indirectly wanted to saythat 81 votes should have been counted in her favour.5.The orders of the Collector have been impugned contendingthat it was passed without application of mind. The legalprocedure have not been followed. Therefore, the entire processof ratification of the no confidence motion in Gram Sabha is illegal.Hence, it ought to have been quashed and set aside. He prayedto allow both petitions.6.Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Gramsevak in WritPetition No.1744 of 2023 has strongly opposed the grounds of 6 902-WP-1744-23.odtpetition. They have argued that the service of individual noticeupon Sarpanch of ordinary or extra ordinary meeting of GramSabha for ratifying the no confidence motion is not essential. Howthe notices of such meeting are to be given, has been provided inRule 5 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959(for short “Rules, 1959”). They would submit that the ground of nonotice is false as she herself was present in the Gram Sabha. Shehad participated and put up her case before the Gram Sabha. Themeeting of Gram Sabha was held in the presence of more than 500people, who cast the votes. The ground of highhandedness iswithout basis. The proceeding was done genuinely in the presenceof the petitioner. Therefore, she has no right to doubt genuinenessof the proceeding of Gram Sabha. On her request, justice was donewith her and by examining again valid and invalid votes, theauthority has fairly counted 114 votes in her favour and 86 votesagainst her. Such fairness shows the application of mind. TheCollector has passed well reasoned order after examining eachfact of the case. There is no illegality in the impugned orders.7.As far as Writ Petition No.9106 of 2022 is concerned, sincethe Gram Sabha retified no confidence motion has becomeinfructuous. 8.A short question before the Court is, “Whether the invalidvotes were correctly counted ?” The next question is, “Whether 7 902-WP-1744-23.odtthe service of individual notice is essential to the Sarpanch of theextra-ordinary meeting of Gram Sabha for ratifying the noconfidence against him or her?”9.The ground has been raised that she was not served with thenotice of the Gram Sabha for the ratification of the no confidencemotion personally. However, surprisingly, she was present in themeeting. She had participated and put up her submissions in themeeting. It has been recorded in the proceeding of the meeting.In the circumstances, it is difficult to accept that she had noknowledge of the said meeting.10.The Rules, 1969 provides for the procedure calling suchmeetings. Rule 4 of the said Rules provides that the Sarpanchmay, at any time of his own motion, and if so required by the[Standing Committee, Panchayat Samiti, or the Chief ExecutiveOfficer,] call an extraordinary meeting of the Gram Sabha. TheSarpanch and in his absence the Upa-Sarpanch shall fix the date,time and place of the meeting of the Gram Sabha. The Sarpanchmay, at any time of his own motion can call an extraordinarymeeting of the Gram Sabha. Rule 5 speaks that the notice of anordinary meeting of the Gram Sabha shall be given at least sevenclear days before the date of such meeting and in the case of anextraordinary meeting at least four clear days before the date ofsuch meeting. Rule 6 provides for procedure for service of notice 8 902-WP-1744-23.odtof such meeting. The notice of such meeting either ordinary orextraordinary, of the Gram Sabha shall be published (a) by affixingit at the office of the panchayat and the village chavdi or choraand in the absence of a village chavdi or chaura at any otherconspicuous place or places in the village, and (b) by making anannouncement by a beat of drum on the fourth day, and also onthe day immediately preceding the date of the meeting. Rule ofintimating the person concerned the date, time and place isapplicable to such meeting.11.Reading the above Rules, it does not show that individualnotice is to be served upon any of the voters. Practically it alsonot possible to serve the individual voter. Sarpanch being the firstcitizen of the village and the officer of the village panchayatshould be more conscious about the activities happending in thevillage. Be that as it may, presence of the petitioner in themeeting itself is a proof that the notices were correctly published.If the notices were not published, such a larger number of voterswould not have attended the meeting. 12.In view of the Rules, 1959 discussed above, there is nosubstance in the submission of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that individual notice of the said meeting to theSarpanch was essential. 13.That the proceeding book of the village meeting has been 9 902-WP-1744-23.odtplaced on record. The signature of few members/voters wereobtained. It is also not the requirement of the law that theproceeding book should be signed by all voters. It is also not rulethat the persons who have signed the proceeding must cast vote.The presence of members is just to show that the meeting isconducted and subject has been placed in the meeting. As perrule the subject of meeting is required to be known to the voterspresent in the meeting. It was discussed and opportunity wasgranted to the petitioner to put her case. She has exercised herright, then as per Section 35(1A), voting by secret ballot wastaken. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with declaring theinvalid votes, the authority had accepted her request and re-examined the valid and invalid votes. The authority has fairlydeclared that 114 votes are in her favour and 81 votes wereagainst her out of 261 invalid votes. The authority also has fairlydeclared 45 ballots blank. Around 21 votes were invalid for theother reasons. While taking the decision of valid or invalid votes,the authority has considered directives of the ElectionCommission.14.After re-examining the valid and invalid votes, 114 voteswere added to the votes which were against the ratification and 81votes were added to the votes which were in favour of ratificationof the votes. Thereafter, again the votes in favour and againstwere re-counted. After recounting, there were 911 votes in favour 10 902-WP-1744-23.odtof ratification of the no confidence motion. 841 votes were againstthe ratification. By totaling these total votes, majority votes werein favour of the ratification of the no confidence motion. Theprocess is done by democratic way. It was the only procedureavailable to call back the elected members in election process.However, subsequently, it has been deleted.15.Perused the impugned orders. The Collector has discussedthe entire facts and the submissions of the parties and relevantprocedures of law, held that Section 35(3B) has not been violated.The resolution ratification the no confidence motion was passed bymajority and correctly dismissed the petition.16.The defect of not ratifying the no confidence motion in GramSabha has been rectified in the meeting. The said meeting and itsprocess was legal and valid. There are no substantial ground tointerfere with the impugned order. In consequences of thesubsequent proceeding and dispute of the petitioner, writ petitionNo.9106 of 2022 become infructuous. Hence, following order ispassed;ORDERi)Writ Petition No.1744 of 2023 stands dismissed.ii)Writ Petition No.9106 of 2022 stands disposed of asinfructuous. ( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGErrd
Arguments
2 902-WP-1744-23.odt12.Ashabai Motilal Mali,Age 50 years, Occu. Household13.Yogita Bharatsing Gosavi,Age 32 years, Occu. Household14.Hirabai Ashok Bhil,Age 54 years, Occu. HouseholdAll R/o. Dahiwad, Tq. Amalner, District Jalgaon..Respondents...Mr. Ashwin V. Hon, Advocate for Petitioner;Mrs. R. R. Tandale (Choure), A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 and 2;Mr. Sachin B. Munde, Advocate for Respondent No.3;Mr. Nilesh N. Bhagat, Advocate for Respondents No.15 and 16…WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 9106 OF 2022Sau. Sushama Wasudeo Patil,(elected Sarpanch through public)Age 46 years, Occu. Social work and Household,R/o. Dahiwad, Tq. Amalner, District Jalgaon..Petitioner(Original Applicant/Appellant)Versus1.The Collector, Jalgaon,District Jalgaon2.The Tahsildar, Amalner,Tq. Amalner, District Jalgaon3.The Block Development Officer,Panchayat Samiti, Amalner,Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon4.The Village Development Officer,Gram Panchayat, DahiwadTq. Amalner, District Jalgaon5.Devanand Kapurchand BahareAe 38 years, Occu. Agri.6.Manikrao Himmatrao Patil,Age 55 years, Occu. Agri. 3 902-WP-1744-23.odt7.Sunil Shaligram Patil,Age 48 years, Occu. Agri.8.Shivaji Suklal Pardhi,Age 28 years, Occu. Agri.9.Vaishali Prakash Mali,Age 27 years, Occu. Household10.Varsha Gulab Patil,Age 42 years, Occu. Household11.Malubai Suresh Mali,Age 46 years, Occu. Household 12.Ashabai Motilal Mali,Age 50 years, Occu. Household13.Yogita Bharatsing Gosavi,Age 32 years, Occu. Household14.Hirabai Ashok Bhil,Age 54 years, Occu. HouseholdAll R/o. Dahiwad, Tq. Amalner, District Jalgaon..Respondents...Mr. Ashwin V. Hon, Advocate for Petitioner;Mrs. R. R. Tandale (Choure), A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 and 2;Mr. Sachin B. Munde, Advocate for Respondent No.3;Mr. Nilesh N. Bhagat, Advocate for Respondents No.15 and 16…CORAM :S. G. MEHARE, J.DATE:21-02-2024PER COURT :-1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.P.for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondentNo.3.2.The petitioner was directly elected Sarpanch. No confidencemotion was passed against her by the elected members in