Bombay High Court: The instant writ was filed against the order of the Collector, wherein, the no confidence motion against the Sarpanch was said to be challenged due to improper service of the notice of the meeting. A Single Judge Bench of Rohit W. Joshi, J., noted that the report of Tehsildar and panchnama gave contradictory versions regarding the service of notice and held that the view taken by the Collector was a possible view. Thus, the order of the Collector did not warrant any interference of the Court as the validity of service of notice was essentially the question of fact. Additionally, the Court dismissed the petition and opined that service of notice was the fundamental requirement under law, but in the instant case the petioners had failed to prove that the notice was not served.
Background
Respondent 3 was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Belad, District Buldana. A no confidence motion was carried against him in the special meeting of the Gram Panchayat, wherein he petitioners questioned the validity of the motion by raising a dispute under Section 35(3B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (Act). The Collector, Buldana had rejected the dispute on the ground that all the 8 members, who were present in the meeting of no confidence motion, had casted votes in favour of the motion and the motion was passed with majority of 8:0.
Respondent 3 contented that he was not served with the notice of the said meeting, but this contention was rejected by the Collector, stating that the notice regarding the said meeting was served to the mother of Respondent 3, making it a valid service of notice. The Collector mentioned that the notice was also pasted on the conspicuous part of his residential house believing the submission of the petitioners. Respondent 3 challenged the order passed by the Collector before the present Court. The Court thus quashed the order passed by the Collector and remanded it for deciding it afresh.
After the matter was remanded, Respondent 3 filed the affidavit and the petitioners examined witnesses in support of their contentions that the notice was served on the mother of Respondent 3 and was also pasted at his residential house. Thus, the Collector allowed the dispute stating that that there was no attestation of any witness to the alleged thumb impression of the mother of Respondent 3 and further that in the panchnama, there was no reference to the act of affixing copy of notice on the conspicuous part of the house of Respondent 3. The Collector stated that if the notice was served to the mother of Respondent 3 then there was no need for pasting the same on the residential house.
Since, the Collector rejected the petitioners’ contention, the members who had voted in favour of the motion of no confidence, filed the present petition being aggrieved by the aforesaid order.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the report of Tehsildar indicated that Respondent 3 had instructed to serve the notice to his mother and apart from this, it was also pasted on the residential house. On the other hand, the panchnama indicated that when Respondent 3 was contacted on his cell phone, he had agreed to receive the notice, however, he later refused to accept the same and, therefore, the notice was pasted on his residential house. Thus, there was a clear contradiction between the report and punchnama. Therefore, the Court opined that the view taken by the Collector of improper service of notice, was a possible view.
Furthermore, the Court stated that the acknowledgment on the office copy of the notice had alleged thumb impression of the mother of Respondent 3, but the thumb impression was not attested by any person, in whose presence the service was allegedly affected.
The petitioners contended that the meeting of no confidence had to be presided over by the Collector or any officer authorised by him as per the provisions of the Act but at the time of the meeting the Sub-divisional officer who was so authorised to conduct the meeting was on leave and had handed over the charge to the Tehsildar thus, claiming that Tehsildar was not a competent authority to preside over the meeting. The Court dismissed this contention on the ground that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused on the said count.
The Court reiterated that the service of notice was the fundamental requirement of law which in the instant case could not be proved to have been served.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition as the report of Tehsildar and panchnama gave contradictory versions regarding the service of notice and held that the view taken by the Collector was a possible view thus, did not warrant any interference of the Court being essentially a question of fact.
[Pratibha v. ddl. Collector, W.P. No. 2867 of 2025, decided on: 2-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Petitioners- R.D. Karode, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents- P.C. Bawankule, A.G.P; Tejas Deshpande, Alpesh Deshmukh, Advocates
