RENUK THAVRU CHAVHAN Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AMRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri. A. S. Mardikar, Advocate for petitioner, Shri. A. S. Sonare, A. G. P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 Shri. P. S. Patil, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 to 9. Respondent no. 3, served, but absent. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking to challenge the order passed by the Additional commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati dated 15. 1. 2008 in Appeal No. 22/bvp Act 35 (3) (c)/2008-2009 of Kohala, Tahsil Darvha, district Yavatmal. In an appeal under section 35 (3) (c) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, which was preferred to challenge the order passed by the Additional Collector, Yavatmal in Gram panchayat Case No. 16/69/08-09 Mouja Kohla, tahsil Darvha, District : Yavatmal, dated 11. 11. 2008.

(3.) BRIEF facts leading to this petition can be stated thus. The petitioner is member of the Gram Panchayat Kohla, Tahsil-Darvha, district-Yavatmal she was elected as Sarpanch in the year 2007. On 17. 7. 2008, respondents no. 4 to 9 moved an Notice for "no confidence" against the petitioner. Special Meeting for considering this no-confidence motion was called on 22. 7. 2008. The motion was carried by 6:0; as the petitioner was absent. Petitioner then preferred a dispute before the Additional collector, Yavatmal, bearing No. Gram panchayat Mamla No. 73/69/2007-2008 Mouja kohla, Tahsil-Darvha, District : Yavatmal. According to the petitioner, the resolution of no confidence dated 22. 7. 2008 was illegally carried. Relevant meeting was not held in gram Panchayat Office, though as per notice it was to be held in Gram Panchayat Office. Notice of the said no confidence motion was not served on the adult member of the family of the petitioner. In fact it was served through her son who was minor. According to the petitioner at the relevant time, it was alleged that she was not granted any opportunity to defend herself, nor there were any proposer or seconder to the said resolution of. no confidence, against petitioner. Learned additional Collector by order dated 26. 8. 2008 dismissed the said dispute saying that there was no substance in the contention and application preferred by the petitioner. Petitioner then challenged that order before the commissioner, Amravati. Learned Additional commissioner, Amravati partly allowed the said appeal. He found that the notice was not properly served and the meeting was not held in accordance with the rules and the resolution of no-confidence against the petitioner was; therefore, not correct. He, however, further held that it would be proper to keep the requisition given earlier by the members intact and Tahsildar was directed to conduct fresh meeting within 15 days from the date of the order i. e. 12. 9. 2008.