JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---Heard respective Counsel for the parties. 2.The election for Village Panchayat, Phulambri, was held in May, 1995, and the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat on 5-9-1995. There are total 17 elected members of the Village Panchayat. On 16-9-1997, two no confidence motions, one against the Sarpanch and second against the Up-Sarpanch, were moved by 7 members of the Village Panchayat as per the provisions of section 35(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is the contention of the petitioner that the notice was given by the members of the Grampanchayat to the Naib Tahsildar of Aurangabad Taluka and not to the Tahsildar of Taluka. The Naib Tahsildar verified their presence, but it was shown to the Naib Tahsildar that the signature of member-Smt. Saraswatibai Annasaheb Jadhav was forged on the notice. The Naib Tahsildar verified the presence of 7 members and then made an endorsement to that effect on the notices. 3.It is further contended by the petitioner that the Tahsildar, Aurangabad, directed that the meeting to consider the no confidence motion, both against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch be held on 22-9-1997 at 2. p.m. The petitioner has contended that very hasty action is taken by the Tahsildar in this respect. As per the provisions of section 35 of the Act, the Tahsildar is to convene the meeting within the period of 7 days. It is not necessary to hold the meeting within the period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice of motion of no confidence. It is further contended by the petitioner that she did not receive the notice regarding meeting to be held on 22-9-1997 for considering the no confidence motion against herself. However, she had received the notice regarding meeting to be held for consideration of no confidence motion against Up-Sarpanch and, therefore, she attended the meeting. When the subject of no confidence motion against the Sarpanch was taken up before the meeting, she raised the objection that she was not served with the notice regarding the meeting to be held for consideration of motion of no confidence against Sarpanch. She also stated that the allegations made in the motion of no confidence were altogether false, baseless and that no opportunity was given to her to defend herself. She also stated that the allegations made in the motion of no confidence were altogether false, baseless and that no opportunity was given to her to defend herself. 4.It is contended that the Tahsildar ignored the objections raised by the petitioner. Both the motions of no confidence against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch were put for voting and the Tahsildar hurriedly declared that both motions were carried by majority. 5.The petitioner then filed a dispute as per the provisions of sub-section (3-B) of section 35 of the Act before the Collector, Aurangabad. The same was heard by the Additional Collector, Aurangabad, and was rejected by him as per his judgment and order dated 19-12-1997. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal against the said order of the Additional Collector as per provisions of section (3-C) before the Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. However, the Commissioner, Aurangabad, also rejected her appeal as per his judgment and order dated 2-3-1998. So the petitioner has moved this Court. 6.The petitioner has contended that the Chairman of Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society, Phulambri, is an associated member of the Village Panchayat, Phulambri. He ought to have been served with notice of no confidence motion against the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch, but no such notice was served on him and, therefore, the meeting held is illegal and all the further proceedings in the meeting are illegal. For this purpose, she is relying on the decision given by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 463/86. 7.The petitioner has strongly contended that the section 35 of the Act provides that the notice of motion of no confidence must be given to Tahsildar and it cannot be given to Naib Tahsildar. So the very mandatory provisions were not followed and, therefore, further proceedings of calling the meeting, moving the motion and carrying out the motion by majority are all illegal. She has contended that there is nothing on record to show that the Naib Tahsildar was officiating as Tahsildar on 16-9-1997. The finding recorded to that effect by the Divisional Commissioner is not proper and legal. The petitioner by effecting the amendment in the petition has further contended that a meeting of the Grampanchayat was held to elect new Sarpanch on 29-3-1998 in the said meeting, the respondent No. 7 is declared elected as Sarpanch. The finding recorded to that effect by the Divisional Commissioner is not proper and legal. The petitioner by effecting the amendment in the petition has further contended that a meeting of the Grampanchayat was held to elect new Sarpanch on 29-3-1998 in the said meeting, the respondent No. 7 is declared elected as Sarpanch. Her contention is that when the meeting held to move the motion of no confidence against her as Sarpanch was illegal and void-ab-initio, the post of Sarpanch has not fallen vacant because of carrying of that motion. So the election of new Sarpanch is also not legal and valid. Hence, the petitioner has prayed that the judgment and order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, on 2-3-1998 in Case No. 1997/DB/ Desk II/ZPVP/ Appeal-II be quashed and set aside. The proceedings of meeting held on 22-9-1997 to the extent of no confidence motion against the Sarpanch be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to continue as Sarpanch of village Phulambri and she be allowed to discharge her duties as Sarpanch. It is also prayed that the election of respondent No. 7 as Sarpanch in the meeting dated 29-3-1998 be declared as null and void. 8.The respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16 have filed affidavit-in-reply of Balaji Dhoke-the respondent No. 1, while the respondent No. 17-Shri Sagar, the Tahsildar, Aurangabad, has filed two affidavits-in-repl,y the respondent Nos. 17 to 20 have also filed affidavit of Mohd. Jamil Mohd. Isakh, Naik working in the office of the Tahsildar, Aurangabad. 9.The stand taken by the respondents is that the notice regarding meeting to be held on 22-9-1997 to consider no confidence motion against the Sarpanch was duly served on the petitioner. She accepted the notice but she refused to acknowledge it by signing the process server's copy. So there is no substance in the stand taken by the petitioner that she was not served with the notice regarding the meeting. The respondent Nos. 17 to 20 have further taken the stand that on 16-9-1997 Shri Sagar, the then Tahsildar had proceeded on leave and, therefore, the Naib Tahsildar (Revenue) was holding the charge of the post of Tahsildar. Considering the provisions of section 10(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the Naib Tahsildar is authorised to act as Tahsildar during the absence of Tahsildar. Considering the provisions of section 10(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the Naib Tahsildar is authorised to act as Tahsildar during the absence of Tahsildar. So the notice of motion of no confidence was rightly accepted by the Naib Tahsildar while acting as Tahsildar of Aurangabad Taluka and there is no illegality or breach of provisions of law. 10.It is also the stand of the respondents that there is no provision of associate member under section 10 of the Act. So the Chairman of the Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society, Phulambri, was not at all associate member of the Grampanchayat and, therefore, it was not necessary to serve any notice on the Chairman of the Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society. 11.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has strongly contended that as per the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Act, the notice regarding motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch has to be given to Tahsildar of the Taluka. Admittedly, the notice was received by the Naib Tahsildar of the Taluka, on 16-9-1996. So there is no compliance of the provisions of section 35(1) of the Act. His contention is that so far as provision of section 35(1) is concerned, the Tahsildar is persona designata and he alone can act and no other officer can act for the purpose of compliance of section 35 of the Act. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the ruling of the Allahabad High Court in the matter between (M/s. I.T.I. Ltd., Allahabad v. District Judge, Allahabad)1, reported in A.I.R. 1998 Allahabad, 313. In the said matter, the provisions of section 2(e) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, were under consideration and the main question was whether the petition filed before the District Judge under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could have been transferred to Additional District Judge for disposal according to law. After considering the specific provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is held in the said ruling that such a petition must be filed before the District Judge and must be disposed of by the District Judge. The facts and the point of law considered in the said ruling are quite different from the facts and point of law in the present matter. The facts and the point of law considered in the said ruling are quite different from the facts and point of law in the present matter. 12.In the present case, the respondents have taken the stand that on 16-9-1997, the Tahsildar was on leave and, therefore, the Naib Tahsildar was officiating as Tahsildar. He is so authorised as per the provisions of section 10(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. So far all practical and legal purposes, even the person who accepted the notices was Naib Tahsildar in his substantive appointment, he was officiating Tahsildar on 16-9-1997. 13.In this respect, it has to be noted that the Bombay Village Panchayat Act has nowhere defined the term "Tahsildar". So the meaning of the word "Tahsildar" will have to be understood with the help of the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. It is not the contention of the petitioner's Counsel that some other interpretation can be given to the term "Tahsildar" than the interpretation provided under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, provides : "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". While section 10 makes the provision: "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) .............. (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 or 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. -............" 14.It is, thus, very clear that the State Government is authorised to appoint Tahsildar for each taluka as per the Land Revenue Code and for temporary vacancies, a specific provision is made under section 10 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Explanation. -............" 14.It is, thus, very clear that the State Government is authorised to appoint Tahsildar for each taluka as per the Land Revenue Code and for temporary vacancies, a specific provision is made under section 10 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. 15.When there is no specific provision under the Act explaining the term "Tahsildar", then the provisions of the Land Revenue Code must be taken into consideration where the term "Tahsildar" is fully explained as pointed above in sections 7 and 10. So if the Tahsildar so appointed is not performing his duty due to any reason on given time, then the Additional Tahsildar, or if there is no additional Tahsildar, then the Naib Tahsildar is supposed to act as Tahsildar during such period and he is to be considered as Tahsildar. 16.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the provisions of section 10 are limited for the purpose of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and it cannot be said that the person so officiating as Tahsildar can also be Tahsildar as contemplated under the Act. However, we do not agree with this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The appointment of Tahsildar is to be made by the State Government and that if Tahsildar is to be considered as Tahsildar for the purposes of the Act, then any other provisions made under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code with respect to office of Tahsildar and especially the provision regarding temporary vacancy under section 10 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code will be applicable for the purpose of provisions of the Act. The Naib Tahsildar who is officiating as Tahsildar during the absence of Tahsildar has to be considered as Tahsildar for all the purposes. There cannot be two different persons; one as Tahsildar contemplated under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and another as Tahsildar as contemplated under the Act. It also cannot be said that the matters which are to be handled by the Tahsildar as per the provisions of the Act cannot be handled by anybody acting as Tahsildar during the temporary absence of Tahsildar. If such an interpretation is put, it will create an anomalous position. It also cannot be said that the matters which are to be handled by the Tahsildar as per the provisions of the Act cannot be handled by anybody acting as Tahsildar during the temporary absence of Tahsildar. If such an interpretation is put, it will create an anomalous position. So if a person is being considered as Tahsildar as per the provisions of section 10(b) of the Land Revenue Code, then he is to be considered as Tahsildar for taking action under section 35 of the Act. 17.In this respect, section 15 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, can be considered. It reads : "Power to appoint to include power to appoint ex officio. Where, by any Bombay Act or Maharashtra Act a power to appoint any person to fill any office or execute any function is conferred, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any such appointment, if it is made after the commencement of this Act, may be made either by name or by virtue of office." 18.The provision under section 35 of the Act makes it clear that the Tahsildar is expected to act under that section by virtue of his office. So any person for the time being holding the said office is empowered to act as Tahsildar for the purpose of section 35 of the Act. The Apex Court in the matter between (Sindhi Lohana Choithram another v. State of Gujrat)2, A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 1532, while considering the provisions of section 15 of Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, has observed : "We think that where power is conferred on a person by name or by virtue of his office, the individual designated by name or as the holder of the office for the time being is empowered specially." In the present matter by virtue of office, the Tahsildar is to take action under section 35 of the Act and, therefore, the Naib Tahsildar who was the holder of the office of Tahsildar for the time being was also authorised to take such an action under section 35 of the Act. 19.The respondent Nos. 17 to 20 have produced on record the documents indicating that Tahsildar Shri Sagar had obtained casual leave on 16-9-1997 and he was to leave his headquarter. He had also accordingly sought permission of the Collector, Aurangabad, for casual leave and permission to leave headquarters. 19.The respondent Nos. 17 to 20 have produced on record the documents indicating that Tahsildar Shri Sagar had obtained casual leave on 16-9-1997 and he was to leave his headquarter. He had also accordingly sought permission of the Collector, Aurangabad, for casual leave and permission to leave headquarters. He accordingly also informed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, that he was proceeding on leave, he was leaving the headquarter and the Naib Tahsildar was directed to look after his work. These relevant documents are at Exhibits R-1 and R-2. The documents also indicate that the Tahsildar was shown as on leave on 16-9-1997 in the concerned register. If these facts are taken into consideration together with the above discussion, it will be very clear that though the person who accepted the notice regarding motion of no confidence was the Naib Tahsildar (Revenue) for Aurangabad taluka, he was acting as Tahsildar, Aurangabad, on 16-9-1997 because of the provisions of section 10(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. He was authorised to act as Tahsildar and in that capacity he had accepted the notice of no confidence. He had not accepted the notice in his capacity as Naib Tahsildar. There is no breach of the provisions of section 35 of the Act. The notice was duly given to the Tahsildar. We, therefore, find no substance in the contention of the petitioner that the notice was not served on Tahsildar as contemplated under section 35(1) of the Act. 20.The second contention of the petitioner is that the notice regarding meeting to be held on 22-9-1997 was not duly served on her and, therefore, the whole proceeding in the meeting is illegal. She has taken the stand that on 22-9-1997, she was present at 2 p.m. in the Grampanchayat office, but she was present because she was served with the notice regarding no confidence motion as against Up-Sarpanch. She raised the objection that she was not served with the notice regarding no confidence motion against Sarpanch. Copy of proceeding book of the meeting of the Grampanchayat on 22-9-1997 is filed on record and it does appear that she had taken such a stand when the meeting started. However, the respondent Nos. She raised the objection that she was not served with the notice regarding no confidence motion against Sarpanch. Copy of proceeding book of the meeting of the Grampanchayat on 22-9-1997 is filed on record and it does appear that she had taken such a stand when the meeting started. However, the respondent Nos. 17 to 20 have taken the stand that two separate notices were issued for the meeting to be held on 22-9-1997, one for considering the motion of no confidence against Sarpanch and the other for consideration of motion of no confidence against Up-Sarpanch. These notices were handed over to the Naik working in the office of Tahsildar, Aurangabad-Shri Mohd. Jamil Mohd. Isakh for service on the members. The petitioner accepted the notice regarding no confidence motion against Up-Sarpanch and duly signed on the office copy of the notice against her name to acknowledge the receipt of said notice. The other notice regarding motion of no confidence against Sarpanch was also handed over to her by Mohd. Jamil Mohd. Isakh. She read it but then she refused to sign the office copy of the notice in acknowledgement of the receipt. Affidavit to that effect of Mohd. Jamil Mohd. Isakh is filed on record. The same stand is taken by Shri Sagar in his affidavit. 21.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that right from beginning the petitioner has taken the stand that she was not served with the notice for meeting to consider no confidence motion against herself. This matter was agitated at the time of meeting and even before the Additional Collector and then before the Commissioner, but they have not properly appreciated the stand taken by the petitioner. No evidence was produced before the authorities to show that notice was duly served. Now by way of afterthought, the revenue officers have filed the affidavits on record, but those cannot be relied upon. Personal service on the Sarpanch or for that matter, member of the Grampanchayat is mandatory under the Bombay Village Panchayat Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975. For this, he has relied upon notes of cases, Note No. 104 in the matter between (Gopaldas v. Grampanchayat, Dabhada)3, reported in 1965 Maharashtra Law Journal, 51. 22.The facts of the said case which are clear from the note are quite different from the facts of the present case. For this, he has relied upon notes of cases, Note No. 104 in the matter between (Gopaldas v. Grampanchayat, Dabhada)3, reported in 1965 Maharashtra Law Journal, 51. 22.The facts of the said case which are clear from the note are quite different from the facts of the present case. There the Patwari stated in the affidavit that the delivery of the copy of the notice to the Sarpanch was made and an entry to that effect was taken in his Tapal Book but the Tapal Book was not produced on record. Another copy of the notice was sent by post, but it was returned with the endorsement "Addressee not found", and it appeared that the address on the notice was not written accurately. So in the given circumstances, the Division Bench of this High Court held that there was no proper service of notice. 23.In the present case, the process server has filed the affidavit that he served two notices; one regarding motion of no confidence against Sarpanch and another regarding motion of no confidence against Up-Sarpanch on the petitioner at Aurangabad on 19-9-1997. The petitioner acknowledged the notice regarding Up-Sarpanch by signing the office copy, but refused to sign the office copy with respect to notice regarding Sarpanch. 24.The petitioner in paragraph No. 3 of her petition has averred : "The petitioner states and submits that the Notice regarding the No Confidence Motion against Up-Sarpanch was also not served on the petitioner personally, however, signature of somebody else was obtained on the said Notice and the said Notice was delivered at the residence of the petitioner and from that Notice, the petitioner came to know that there is a meeting scheduled on 22-09-1997 to discuss the No Confidence Motion against the Sarpanch. The petitioner is annexing herewith copies of the service copy of Sarpanch as well as Up-Sarpanch at Exhibit "A" collectively, from which it can be gathered that the notice regarding Sarpanch was not at all served on the petitioner and it did not bear any date also." 25.In the meeting, the petitioner took stand that she had received the notice regarding meeting to be held to consider motion of no confidence against the Up-Sarpanch but suddenly now she has taken the stand that even that notice was not served on her and her signature is forged on the relevant documents and the notice was left at her residence. If anybody wanted to make a show of service of notice on the petitioner, then the signature of the petitioner could have been forged even on the acknowledgement with respect to notice regarding motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch. The very stand taken by the petitioner does not appeal to reason and she has changed her stand from what she had taken on 22-9-1997. 26.Further more how she came to know about the meeting to be held on 22-9-1997 at 2 p.m. for consideration of motion of no confidence against herself, that is made clear in the above quoted paragraph. The notice regarding Up-Sarpanch was distinct from the notice regarding Sarpanch. The notices which are filed at Exhibit A by the petitioner do not indicate that the notice regarding no confidence motion against Up-Sarpanch has any reference to the notice regarding no confidence motion against Sarpanch. So it cannot be said that by reading the notice regarding Up-Sarpanch, she came to know about the meeting to be held for consideration of no confidence motion against the Sarpanch. Further more, she was having both the notices and she had duly filed those on record. It means that she had received both the notices; one for motion of no confidence against the Up-Sarpanch and the second about the motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch. She came to know that there was no confidence motion against her also and the meeting was to be held on 22-9-1997 at 2 p.m. and, therefore, she avoided to acknowledge the receipt of the notice by signing the office copy. The contention of the respondents is fully corroborated by the averment in paragraph No. 3 of the petition itself. She came to know that there was no confidence motion against her also and the meeting was to be held on 22-9-1997 at 2 p.m. and, therefore, she avoided to acknowledge the receipt of the notice by signing the office copy. The contention of the respondents is fully corroborated by the averment in paragraph No. 3 of the petition itself. The petitioner is trying to take advantage of her own wrong deed of not signing the acknowledgement regarding service of notice of no confidence against the Sarpanch. She was duly served with the notice. She got full knowledge that there was no confidence motion against herself to create a ground to raise the dispute, she avoided to sign the acknowledgement. The affidavit filed by the process server Shri Mohd. Jamil Mohd. Isakh is, therefore, bringing on record true state of facts. There is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that she was not served with the notice regarding meeting to consider no confidence motion against Sarpanch. Altogether false and baseless stand is taken by the petitioner. 27.The other point raised by the petitioner in the petition is that Chairman, Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society, Phulambri, is an associate member of the Village Panchayat, Phulambri and he ought to have been served with the notices regarding meeting of no confidence motion, but he was not served with notices and, therefore, the meeting held is illegal. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this High Court in the Writ Petition No. 463/1986 decided on 16-7-1986. 28.The respondents have rightly pointed out that the Act is amended to bring it in conformity with the provisions of Article 243-C(2) of the Constitution of India. Section 10 of the Act which provides for constitution of Panchayats does not make any provision for associate member or co-opted member. All the members of the Grampanchayat are elected members. The present Grampanchayat has come into existence as per the amended Act and, therefore, there is no associate member or co-opted member of the Grampanchayat. The petitioner has taken this stand without any substance. There is no associate member of the Grampanchayat and, therefore, it cannot be said that as notice of meeting was not served on such associate member, the meeting was, therefore, not properly convened. The petitioner has taken this stand without any substance. There is no associate member of the Grampanchayat and, therefore, it cannot be said that as notice of meeting was not served on such associate member, the meeting was, therefore, not properly convened. 29.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not pressed any other point in support of the petition. 30.From the above discussion, it will be clear that when the petitioner was duly served with the notice and she was fully aware that the meeting was convened for consideration of no confidence motion against the Sarpanch, she took a false stand that she was not served with the notice. The petitioner was the Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat. She was fully knowing that there was no associate member of the Grampanchayat, even then she had taken the stand that the notice of the meeting was not served on associate member and, therefore, the meeting was illegal. Similarly, it can be said that the stand taken by the petitioner that the notice regarding motion of no confidence was not given to the Tahsildar, is taken just to take technical objection to the meeting. Fourteen out of seventeen members of the Grampanchayat voted in favour of no confidence motion and this by itself was sufficient for the petitioner to accept the verdict in democracy. She has unnecessarily filed this petition. Such practice must be curbed. Hence, the petition stand dismissed. Rule is discharged. The petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as costs to respondent Nos. 17 to 20 jointly. Petitioner dismissed. -----