Allowed

Shri Ladakbhai Janyabhai Mishal v. Shri Kamlakar Govindbhai Kharpadia and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jun 2011WP/4593/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Development Commissioner to decide an application for removal under the Village Panchayats Regulations within six weeks, while permitting a scheduled No Confidence Motion to proceed with the respondents' votes counted but sealed and excluded from the result.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent no. 8 to decide the removal application within six weeks; permit the No Confidence Motion to proceed with respondents' votes sealed and excluded from the count.

Shri Ladakbhai Janyabhai Mishal Vs Shri… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2011)

WP-4593-11

skc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 4593 OF 2011

¶7

Ladakbhai Janyabhai Mishal

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

Kamlakar Govindbhai Kharpadia & Ors. ..Respondents

¶11

Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani i/b. Mr. Balkrishna D. Joshi and Mr. Virendra Pethe for Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. V. C. Kotwal, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Amit Gharte for Respondent No. 1. Mr. L. M. Acharya i/b. Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Girish Kulkarni for Respondent Nos. 4 to 8.

¶13

Mr. Atul G. Damle for Respondent No. 9 – Union of India.

¶14

CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶15

23 June 2011.

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 8 and learned counsel for respondent no. 9.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner

¶19

has filed an application dated 14^th June 2011 before the respondent no. 8 Development Commissioner, Dadra and Nagar Haveli seeking action of

WP-4593-11

skc

removal / disqualification of respondent nos. 1 to 3 under Section 26(1) of The Dadra and Nagar Haveli Village Panchayats Regulations, 1965. It is contended that the said application is pending for decision before the respondent no. 8 and therefore prayed that direction be given to the respondent no. 8 to decide the said application within a stipulated period.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the issue about removal / disqualification of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 is under consideration of the respondent no. 8, the meeting which is scheduled on 24^th June 2011 to consider the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner no.1 who is Sarpanch of Khanvel Group Gram Panchayat may be stayed till such time the issue about disqualification / removal of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 is decided by the respondent no. 8.

¶25

The learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 has submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner for removal of respondent nos. 1 to 3 under Section 26(1) of the Regulation shall be decided as per the directions of this Hon’ble Court within a period specified in the order.

¶26

The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and 3 have submitted that merely because the application for removal filed by the

WP-4593-11

skc

petitioner under Section 26(1) of the Regulation is pending before the respondent no. 8 that cannot be the ground either to stay the meeting which is scheduled on 24^th June 2011 to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner nor the respondent nos. 1 to 3 can be prohibited from participating in the said meeting. It is further contended that the meeting which is scheduled on 24^th June 2011 to consider the motion of no confidence may be permitted to be held and the result thereof may also be permitted to be declared.

¶31

The alternate suggestion which is given by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and 3 is that if the Court is not inclined to accept the above referred contentions canvassed by the respondent no. 1 and 2 and 3, in that event the meeting which is scheduled on 24^th June 2011 to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner be permitted to be held and the vote casted by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 may be kept in a sealed cover and the result of the meeting may be permitted to be declared without counting the votes of the respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶32

We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the instant case it is not disputed that the petitioner has submitted application under Section 26(1) of the Regulation before the

WP-4593-11

skc

respondent no. 8 for taking action of removal of respondent nos. 1 to 3, which is pending for decision. In these circumstances, we direct the respondent no. 8 to decide the said application of the petitioner dated 14^th June 2011 on its own merits in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard as early as possible, in any event not beyond six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The meeting which is scheduled on 24^th June 2011 to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner is permitted to be held. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are also permitted to sit and vote, however their ballot box should be separate which should be sealed after votes are casted by them and the result of the meeting shall be declared without counting the votes of respondent nos. 1 to 3. This arrangement shall continue till such time the respondent no. 8 takes a decision on the application of the petitioner as directed by this court. The petitioner as well as all other parties who are connected with the application pending before the respondent no. 8 shall extend full co-operation and see that the application is disposed of within a stipulated time.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 states that if the decision for

¶38

some reason could not be taken within a stipulated period of six weeks, permission to move the court for extension may kindly be granted. Permission granted.

WP-4593-11

skc

With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶43

All the parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Registry.

¶44

(D. D. SINHA, J.)

¶45

(A. R. JOSHI, J.)

Shri Ladakbhai Janyabhai Mishal v. Shri Kamlakar Govindbhai Kharpadia and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ladakbhai Janyabhai Mishal v. Shri Kamlakar Govindbhai Kharpadia and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Urwarit Maharashtra Vaidhanik Vikas Mandal and Anr. Vs Gram Panchayat and Ors.

Ekta Chsl (Proposed) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

New Ekta Chsl (Proposed) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

A Jabber Saheblal Sheikh Vs the Special District Social Welfare Officer, and Ors.

Shrikrishnaprasad Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs the Asstt Registrar, Co. Operative Societies

Ashok Bhausaheb Arage Vs Collector Kolhapur and Ors.