The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his appeal against a 'no confidence' motion passed against him as Up-Sarpanch, arguing non-service of notice. The court rejected the claim, accepting the Tahasildar's statement that notice was served via Gramsevak and Talathi, and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 2188.2013 WP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2188 OF 2013
Kishor Rangnath Walunje .. Petitioner
Versus
The Additional Collector, Aurangabad and others .. Respondents
Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / State Shri S.G. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No. 4 to 7, 10 to 12
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 18th MARCH, 2013.
PER COURT :
. A requisition was moved to discuss ‘No confidence’ motion against the Up-Sarpanch of Grampanchayat. The said resolution is passed by seven members. The petitioner has assailed the same in appeal. The Additional Collector, dismissed the appeal, aggrieved thereby the present petition.
2 2188.2013 WP
notice of the meeting convened to discuss the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. The petitioner had also given an application before the Additional Collector, to refer the said signature to the Hand Writing Expert and said fact is not considered by the Additional Collector on the ground that the notice is served on the petitioner before the Gramsevak as per the say of the Tahasildar, the Additional Collector has accepted the said fact. According to the learned counsel, non service of notice upon the petitioner vitiates the proceedings. The learned counsel submits that even the signature on the alleged acknowledgment differs with the signature of the petitioner on the other resolutions of the Grampanchayat.
3 2188.2013 WP
of the said special meeting was not served on the petitioner. The Additional Collector, has referred to the say filed by the Tahasildar, which states that the notice is served on the petitioner. On the first day, petitioner did not accept the said notice and said that on the next day he will consult his lawyer. After consulting his lawyer he has signed on the said notice and accepted it. It is also observed by the Additional Collector that in the presence of the Talathi and the Gramsevak the notices are served. They are independent persons, there was no reason to disbelieve the same.
[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
SDM*/March-2013
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the non-service of notice on the petitioner vitiated the 'no confidence' motion passed by the Grampanchayat.
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for handwriting expert opinion was permissible.
Kishor Rangnath Walunje
The Additional Collector, Aurangabad
S. V. Gangapurwala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
