ORDER
Ashok Agarwal, J.
1. Petitioners, who are the Sarpanch and Upasarpanch, Ambak, Taluka Khanapur, Dist. Sangli, have filed the present petition seeking to impugn the No Confidence Motion passed against them in a meeting held on 17th April, 1997.
2. Few facts, giving rise to the filing of the petition, are as under:-
In a Bye-election held on 3rd April, 1997, one Bhausaheb Pandurang Jagdale was elected. His election was displayed on the Notice Board of Grampanchayat on 9th April, 1997. On 11th April, 1997, a requisition for calling a meeting to consider No Confidence Motion was issued. On 12th April, 1997, requisition notice is signed by five members, which is more than 1/3rd of the total number of members of the Grampanchayat. The Tahsildar by his notice dated 12th April, 1997, convened a meeting to be held on 17th April, 1997. The said notice, it is the case of the petitioners, was served upon them on 15th April, 1997. In the meeting held on 17th April, 1997, No Confidence Motion has been duly passed. The petitioners after having failed in the appeals filed before the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, have moved the present petition.
3. Dr. Choudhari, the learned advocate appearing in support of the petition has first contended that Shri Jagdale, who was elected at the Bye-election held on 3rd April, 1997 is one of the five signatories to the requisition notice dated 11th April, 1997, calling for a meeting to consider the No Confidence Motion. According to him, Shri Jagdale could not have participated and voted at the meeting held on 17th April, 1997 as his term of office would have commenced on the date of the 1st meeting of the panchayat as provided in section 28 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). If the vote which has been cast by Shri Jagdale is ignored the Motion cannot be said to have been passed by a majority.
4. In our view, there is no merit in the aforesaid contention. Section 28 provides for the commencement of the term of office of the members elected at the general election of the panchayat. As far as Shri Jagdale is concerned, he has been elected on 3rd April, 1997. His election has been duly published on the Notice Board on 9th April, 1997. Shri Jagdale has attended the meeting on 17th April, 1997, which, is his first meeting of the panchayat. He, therefore, is fully entitled to participate and vote at the election.
5. Dr. Chowdhari has next contended that notice of the No Confidence Motion was served upon the petitioners on 15th April, 1997 whereas the meeting was held on 17th April, 1997 which is within a period of 3 days from the date of service.
6. Reliance is placed on Rule 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959, which provides as under:-
“4. The secretary shall, at least three clear days before the date fixed for any ordinary meeting, or for any meeting called under section 28, 33 and 43, send or cause to be sent to all the members intimation of the date, time and place and the business to be transacted at such meeting.”
According to Dr. Chaudhari since three clear days notice has not been given to the petitioners the meeting as also the consequent No Confidence Motion is vitiated. In our view, The Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 have no application to the meeting held for considering the No Confidence Motion. The meetings of No Confidence Motion are governed by the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No -Confidence) Rules, 1975. Rule 2(3) of the said Rules provides as under.”
“2(3) The Tahsildar shall, immediately on receipt of notice under sub-rule (1) satisfy himself that the notice has been given by not less than one-third of the total number of members (other than associate members) who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meting of the panchayat and then convene a special meting for the purpose within seven days from the date of the receipt of such notice.”
The aforesaid Rule merely enjoins upon the Tahsildar, after receipt of the notice, to convene a meeting to consider a No Confidence Motion within seven days from the date of receipt of such notice.
7. In the instant case notice of No Confidence has been issued by the members on 11-4-1997. The Tahsildar by his notice dated 12th April, 1997 has convened a meeting to be held on 17th April, 1997 which is within a period of seven days. Moreover, all that Rule 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959 provides is that the secretary shall send intimation of the meeting which intimation has to be sent atleast 3 days before the date fixed for the meeting. The said provision does not provide that the said notice has to be served upon the members three clear days before the date of the meeting. The second contention of Dr. Chowdhari, therefore, is rejected.
8. Dr. Chowdhari next contended that neither the Motion of No Confidence has been proposed by any member nor has the same been seconded by
another member and hence the No Confidence Motion is illegal. He has placed reliance on Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings). Rule, 1959. The relevant portion of the said section Rule provides as under:-
“17.(1) A member who has given notice of a motion shall, when called on, either.
(a) state that he does not wish to move the motion, or
(b) move the motion in which case he shall commence his speech by a formal motion in the terms appearing on the list business, after the motion is duly seconded.”
This again in our view will have no application to a meeting to consider a No Confidence Motion which will be governed by the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence) Rules, 1975. The aforesaid Rules namely Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 and Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence) Rules 1975 has been framed in view of the powers conferred on the State Government by section 176 of the Act. The same section provides for making Rules for different purposes of the Act. Different Rules are therefore framed for achieving different objects and purposes of the Act. It will therefore not be open to introduce one set of Rules while considering the provision of the other Rules which have been framed for distinct objects and purposes of the Act. Moreover, as far as the present Motion is concerned, the same is deemed to have been moved by the members who have signed the requisition and had voted for the same. Therefore, the said contention of Dr. Chowdhari is also rejected.
9. Shri Rane, the learned Additional Government Pleader has contended that the present petition is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties. The No Confidence Motion was proposed and was passed at the instance of five members of the panchayat. Neither of them are impleaded in the present petition. According to Dr. Chowdhari since there was no proposer and no seconder to the No Confidence Motion, he has not impleaded any one of the members of the panchayat.
10. In our view, the ground urged by Shri Rane is justified; as these members have a direct interest in the subject matter of the petition. In case the No Confidence Motion is set aside their interest would be vitally affected as their No Confidence Motion would be set aside without affording them an opportunity of being heard.
11. Looked at from any angle of the case, we find that the petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly rejected.
12. Petition rejected.