Dismissed

Shri. Sadashiv Mhalappa Vhanmane v. Shri. Baban Shivaji Bhosale and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Jul 2012WP/5427/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the dismissal of his appeal regarding a no-confidence motion. The court held that despite the petitioner's request for an adjournment, he failed to avail the opportunity to file a written statement, rendering the impugned order lawful.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as no case was made out for exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Shri. Sadashiv Mhalappa Vhanmane Vs Shri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP5427_2012

¶2

Vidya amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5427 OF 2012

¶5

Sadashiv Mhalappa Vhanmane .... Petitioner vs. Baban Shivaji Bhosale & Ors. .... Respondents

¶6

Mr. Amit Sale, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Milind Deshmukh i/b. Mr. Umesh Mankapure, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 7. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for respondent nos. 9 to 11.

¶8

CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 2^nd July, 2012.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard Mr. Amit Sale, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Milind Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 7 and Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, learned AGP for respondent nos. 9 to 11 at length.

¶11

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 25^th May, 2012 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in an appeal preferred by the petitioner under section 35(3C) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short ‘Act’) as also the judgment and order dated 26^th March, 2012 passed by the Additional Collector, Sangli.

¶12

The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Darikonur, Taluka Jath, District Sangli. On 24^th February, 2012, 7 members out of 9 members gave notice to the Tahsildar requesting him to convene a meeting for discussing the No Confidence motion against the petitioner. Since the requisition was made by more than 1/3^rd members of the Panchayat, the Tahsildar fixed a meeting on 29^th February, 2012. In that meeting, 7 members voted in favour of No

¶13

1 Of 3

¶14

WP5427_2012

¶15

Confidence motion and accordingly the motion was carried out. The petitioner raised dispute before the Additional Collector, Sangli under section 35(3B) of the Act. By the judgment and order dated 26^th February, 2012, the Additional Collector, Sangli dismissed the dispute raised by the petitioner. While dismissing the dispute, he came to the conclusion that the motion was carried out by 7 against 2 which is 2/3^rd majority. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner preferred appeal under section 35(3C) before the Divisional Commissioner, Pune. The said appeal was dismissed on 25^th May, 2012. Aggrieved by these decisions, the petitioner has instituted the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

In support of this petition, Mr. Sale strenuously contended that the matter is required to be remanded to the Divisional Commissioner, Pune as the petitioner is denied a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend his case. He invited my attention to the application dated 7^th May, 2012 made by the petitioner, which was duly supported by a medical certificate. He submitted that the matter was fixed for hearing on 30^th April, 2012 and was adjourned to 7^th May, 2012. On 7^th May, 2012, an application was made by the petitioner for adjournment on the ground of illness of his advocate, which was supported by a medical certificate. The said application was rejected and the Divisional Commissioner proceeded to hear the matter, He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner was denied fair opportunity of hearing and thus the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune suffers from the gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶17

On the other hand, Mr. Deshmukh supported the impugned order. He submitted that the Gram Panchayat consists of 9 members, out of which 7 members have supported the motion. He, therefore, submitted that since the No Confidence motion was passed by majority

¶18

2 Of 3

¶19

WP5427_2012

¶20

members, no interference is called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perusal of the order dated 25^th May, 2012 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune shows that the matter was kept for hearing on 30^th April, 2012. On that date, the petitioner was present and requested for adjournment. The request for adjournment was refused and the petitioner was asked to file written say within eight days. However, till the passing of the order on 25^th May, 2012, neither the petitioner nor his advocate appeared before him and have also not filed any written say. Considering the material on record, the Divisional Commissioner, Pune dismissed the appeal.

¶22

After perusing the material on record and after hearing Mr. Sale, I do not find that the learned Divisional Commissioner, Pune has committed any error of law apparent from the face of the record and also it cannot be said that the impugned orders are perverse or have been passed without any material. The matter was fixed for hearing on 30^th April, 2012. On that day, adjournment was sought by the petitioner. The said request was turned down and the petitioner was asked to file written say. Till passing of the impugned order on 25^th May, 2012, no written say was filed. Thus, despite giving opportunity to the petitioner, he did not avail the same. In view thereof, no case is made out for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

In the result, petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

( R.G. KETKAR, J )

¶25

3 Of 3

Shri. Sadashiv Mhalappa Vhanmane v. Shri. Baban Shivaji Bhosale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sadashiv Mhalappa Vhanmane v. Shri. Baban Shivaji Bhosale 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

Vijay Krishnaji Rane Vs Manohar Keshav Karangutkar and Ors.

Smt. Jayshree Raghunath Lad and Ors. Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Khatavwadi Tennants Co-Operative Society Ltd, through Managing Committee Vs Mr. Gangasagar S. Tiwari

Ajit Shankar Jadhav Vs Gopinath Patil Parsik Janta Sah. Bank, Thane and Ors.

Amir Aga Vs Shaikh Abdulla Shaikh Yunus (Decd.)by Lrs.- Abdulla Rehman Abdulla Shaikh and Ors.

Babu Tukaram Kalekar and Others Vs Nilkanth Gopal Deshpande