Bombay High CourtWP/8363/2019dismissedrule discharged

Kailash S/O Madhavrao Zhore v. Additional Collector, Buldhana And Others

2020-01-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice R.V. Ghuge2 pages

1 wp8363.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.8363/2019 Kailash S/o Madhavrao Zhore ..V/s..

Additional Collector, Buldhana and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.S. Dhore, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms K.R. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATED : 6.1.2020.

1] The petitioner, Up-sarpanch of village Grampanchayat Kingaon Raja, Taluka Sindhkhed Raja, Distt. Buldhana has suffered the no confidence motion which was passed by 9 votes in favour and one against. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Buldhana vide which his challenge to the no confidence motion and the business transacted in the special meeting, has been rejected.

2] The learned Advocate for the petitioner has strenuously criticized the impugned order. Contention is that he was performing his duties as Up-Sarpanch within the framework of law. There was nothing objectionable

2 wp8363.19 about his way of functioning. It was, in fact, the Sarpanch whose conduct was objectionable and, therefore, the Up-Sarpanch developed strained relations with the Sarpanch.

3] The record reveals that the motion for no confidence was tabled within 7 days from the date of the requisition. The Grampanchayat has 13 elected Members. Ten persons attended the meeting and 9 have voted in favour of the motion.

4] Considering the fact situation, I do not find that the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector could be termed as perverse or erroneous. This petition being devoid of merits is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) Tambaskar.