Writ Petition No.67 of 2013

28th January, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. M.P. Kale
Respondent Counsel: Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar

Cases Cited:
Yamunabai Laxman Chavan and others Vs. Sarubai Tukaram Jadhav and others, 2004(3) ALL MR 93 =2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 1004 [Para 3]
Mrs.Chandrakalabai W/o Kondiram Wankhede Vs. Balaji S/o Shahaji Dhoke and others, 2000(4) Bom.C.R.157 [Para 4,15]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Heard.

2. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Borgaon, Tq.Palam. The present Respondents Nos.3 to 8 gave a requisition to the Tahsil Office for convening a special meeting to consider No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. The Tahsildar convened the special meeting to be held on 1.10.2012. In the said meeting the motion of No Confidence was passed against the petitioner. Six members were present in the meeting and they all voted in favour of the No Confidence Motion. The said Grampanchayat consist of seven members. The petitioner assailed the said motion of No Confidence before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector, dismissed the dispute. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition.

3. Mr.Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the notice convening the special meeting has to be received by the Tahsildar. The same is the mandate of Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Panchayat Act for sake of brevity). According to the learned counsel the provisions of Section 35(1) of the Panchayat Act of giving such notice to the Tahsildar is mandatory. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Yamunabai Laxman Chavan and others Vs. Sarubai Tukaram Jadhav and others" reported in 2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 1004 : [2004(3) ALL MR 93]. The learned counsel submits that in the present case the requisition moved by Respondent Nos.3 to 8 for convening the special meeting was received by the Peshkar and not by the Tahsildar. In view of the same, the meeting and the Resolution of No Confidence stands vitiated. The learned counsel submits that the Additional Collector has not considered the said aspect.

4. Mr.Pulkundwar, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader submits that the Tahsildar on the relevant date was on leave. The post of Naib-Tahsildar was vacant. The Peshkar was the senior most Revenue Officer officiating. As per Section 10(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, he would be empowered to receive the said requisition, as for all practical purposes, he would be officiating Tahsildar. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Mrs.Chandrakalabai W/o Kondiram Wankhede Vs. Balaji S/o Shahaji Dhoke and others" reported in 2000(4) Bom.C.R.157.

5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the proceedings and the order.

6. The facts undisputed can be culled out as under :

(a) The petitioner is sarpanch of Grampanchayat Borgaon.

(b) The Respondent Nos.3 to 8 have moved a requisition to the Tahsildar for convening the special meeting to consider the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner.

(c) The said requisition is received by the Peshkar in the office of the Tahsildar.

(c) The notice convening the special meeting has been issued by the Tahsildar.

(d) The special meeting was conducted by the Tahsildar and all six members present have voted in favour of the No Confidence Motion. The Grampanchayat consist of seven members.

7. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the only contour of controversy would be the powers of the Peshkar to receive the requisition moved by the Respondent Nos.3 to 8 requesting to convene the special meeting to discuss the no confidence motion against the petitioner. Sections 7 and 10 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code read as under :

"7. Revenue Officers in district :-

(1) The State Government shall appoint a Collector [(for each district (including the City of Bombay)] who shall be in charge of the revenue administration thereof; and a Tahsildar for each taluka who shall be the chief officer entrusted with the local revenue administration of a taluka.

(2) The State Government may appoint one or more Additional Collectors [and in each district (including the City of Bombay)] and so many Assistant Collectors and Deputy Collectors (with such designation such as "First", "Second" "Super", etc. Assistants as may be expressed in the order of their appointment), one or more Naib-Tahsildars in a taluka, and one or more Additional Tahsildars or Naib Tahsildars therein and such other persons (having such designations) to assist the revenue officers as it may deem expedient.

(3) Subject to the general orders of the State Government, the Collector may place any Assistant or Deputy Collector in charge of one or more sub-divisions of a district, or may himself retain charge thereof,. Such Assistant or Deputy Collector may also be called a Sub-Divisional Officer.

(4) The Collector may appoint to each district as many persons as he thinks fit to be Circle Officers and Circle Inspectors to be in charge of a Circle, and one or more Talathis for a Saza, and one or more Kotwals of other village servants for each village or group of villages, as he may deem fit."

"10. Temporary vacancies :- If a Collector or Tahsildar is disabled from performing his duties or for any reason vacates his office or leaves his jurisdiction or dies -

(a) the Additional Collector and if there be no Additional Collector, the Assistant or Deputy Collector of the highest rank in the district -

(b) the Additional Tahsildar, and if there be no Additional Tahsildar, the Naib Tahsildar or the senior-most subordinate revenue officer in the taluka,

shall, unless other provision has been made by the State Government, succeed temporarily to the office of the Collector, as the case may be, of the Tahsildar and shall be held to be the Collector or Tahsildar under this Code, until the Collector or Tahsildar resumes charge of his district or taluka, or until such time as a successor is duly appointed and takes charge of his appointment.

Explanation :- An officer whose principal office is different from that of an Assistant Collector, and who is working as an Assistant Collector for special purposes only, shall not be deemed as an Assistant for the purposes of this section."

8. Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, deals with motion of No Confidence. It lays down that a motion of No Confidence may be moved by not less than [one-third] of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the Panchayat against the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch after giving such notice thereof to the Tahsildar as may be prescribed.

9. The said section lays down that notice in respect of motion of no confidence is to be given to the 'Tahsildar' as may be prescribed.

10. The phraseology Tahsildar has not been defined under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act nor under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

11. Tahsildar is the Chief Officer entrusted with the local revenue administration at taluka level. The Naib Tahsildar or Additional Tahsildar are appointed to assist him.

12. The conjoint reading of the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, it can not be said that the terminology 'Tahsildar' as appearing in Section 35 is used as 'persona designata'.

13. The expression 'persona designata' refers to a person addressed by name or other personal description in contradistinction to one whose identity is to be ascertained by the office which he holds. When a person is indicated in a statute not by name but by an official designation, a question will crop up whether the intention was to single him out as a 'persona designata' as an individual, the designation being merely a further description of him or that he would cease to be the person so indicated on losing his official designation. Whether the intention is one or the other has to be gathered from the words used, nature of the functions to be performed and the object and purpose of the statute.

14. Perusal of Section 10, it is manifest that if the Tahsildar leaves his jurisdiction then the Additional Tahsildar and if there would be no Additional Tahsildar, Naib-Tahsildar or the senior most subordinate revenue officer in the taluka shall succeed temporarily to the office of the Tahsildar and shall be held to be Tahsildar under the Code until the Tahsildar resumes charge of his district or taluka.

15. It is stated on affidavit that the Tahsildar on the relevant date was on leave. There was no officiating Naib-Tahsildar and the Peshkar was the next senior most subordinate officer and he has received the requisition. The Division Bench of this Court in a case of Mrs.Chandrakala W/o Kondiram Wankhede Vs. Balaji S/o Shahaji Dhoke and others" referred supra had an occasion to consider such aspect. In the said case the requisition was received by the Naib-Tahsildar instead of Tahsildar. The Division Bench considered Section 10 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and held that the same would be permissible and further observed that if the Tahsildar so appointed is not performing his duty due to any reason on a given time then Naib-Tahsildar is supposed to act as a Tahsildar. The provisions of Section 10 can be considered for the purpose of interpreting the word "Tahsildar" as appearing in Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The same was also considered by the Division Bench in the said judgment. In view of Section 10(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the senior most subordinate revenue officer would be entitled to receive the requisition.

16. In light of the above, the requisition having been received by the next senior most subordinate revenue officer, it can not be said that it was received by a person without authority.

17. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs.

Petition dismissed.