Ravindra Babasaheb Golde v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
1 WP 3309/17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3309 OF 2017 Ravindra S/o Babasaheb Golde Petitioner V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Village Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 and four others Respondents Mr. V.V. Udhan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Y.G. Gujrathi, A.G.P. for the respondents/State CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE : 9th MARCH, 2017 PER COURT :
1.
Mr.Udhan, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the requisition has been moved for calling the meeting against the petitioner-Sarpanch for no confidence. Five persons have moved the said requisition. Out of those persons, one lady Jijabai is not the member of the Gram Panchayat, still it is shown that she has put her thumb impression on the
2 WP 3309/17 said requisition. Learned counsel further submits that three members are elected from the reserved category. As per Section 10 (1-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, more particularly it's proviso, a person who get elected from the reserved category has to submit Validity Certificate in six months. Learned counsel submits that as three persons are disqualified and one more is not the member of the Gram Panchayat, the requisition is not by majority. The Gram Panchayat has total seven members. Considering the above, notice of the no confidence motion being illegal, deserves to be set aside. 2.
We have heard the learned A.G.P.
3.
The contention of the petitioner could have been accepted in view of the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anant H. Ulahalkar and another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner and others, reported in 2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 431. However, the said Judgment has been stayed by the Apex Court on
3 WP 3309/17 13th February, 2017 in the Special Leave to Appeal. Even if we exclude the name of one person who has signed the requisition, the same would have been deemed to be signed by the requisite number of members. In view of above, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be considered.
4.
The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
( K.L. WADANE, J.) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) SRM/9/3/17