Sau. Suvarna Prakash Patil vs Anil Hindurao Powar and Others

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.—The only question that arises in this Petition is: whether the Respondents 1 to 5 herein could have participated in the meeting held on 18th December, 2001, to decide the No Confidence Motion, in pursuance of notice dated 12th December, 2001, as they had incurred disqualification u/s 14(h) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''), being defaulters? Indeed, in the companion Writ Petition No. 2924 of 2003, the Respondents have been held to be defaulters at the relevant time and therefore disqualified, but having regard to the express provision in Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act, so long as the question is not decided by the Collector, the member shall not be disabled under Sub-section (1) of that provision to be a member. If that is the express statutory provision, then obviously the Respondents 1 to 5 though were defaulters at the relevant time even then so long as the issue as to whether they have incurred disqualification was finally decided against them, could continue to conduct themselves as members of the Gram Panchayat. In the present case, the declaration of disqualification has culminated with the order passed today in the companion Writ Petition. Whereas, the meeting in question was already held on 18th December, 2001. A priori, there was no inhibition so to prevent or preclude the Respondents 1 to 5 from participating in the said meeting as members of the Gram Panchayat on account of the abovesaid express statutory provision. Accordingly, the No Confidence Motion as passed cannot be questioned on the ground which is pressed into service in this Writ Petition.

As this is the only question that arises for consideration, this Petition should necessarily fail and the same is therefore dismissed.