JUDGMENT 1 The learned AGP tenders affidavit-in-reply across the bar, copy of which is given to the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The same is taken on record. 2 The learned Counsel for the Respondents No.3 to 8 submits that during pendency of these two writ petitions, in terms of the directions issued by the Collector while passing the impugned order, the Gram Sabha was conducted by the concerned Block Development Officer and majority of the members of the Gram Sabha voted in favour of No Confidence Motion. 3 The learned Counsel for the petitioners, in terms of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mrs.Samidha Janardan Kudalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (Writ Petition St.No.98737 of 2020, decided on 22nd December, 2020) seeks leave to add prayer clause pertaining to the decision taken by the Gram Sabha on 21st February, 2021. 4 Leave granted. 5 The petitioners, in these two writ petitions, are Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, respectively. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.214 of 2021 is a directly elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The members of the Gram Panchayat have moved motion of No Confidence and accordingly the Tahsildar concerned has called meeting of the Panchayat for considering the said No Confidence Motion. Notice of the meeting was issued on 07.08.2020 and the Special Meeting was held on 13.08.2020. In the said meeting, the motion of No Confidence was passed against the petitioners, who are Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, respectively, by majority of votes. It further appears that since the petitioner in W.P.No.214 of 2021 is a directly elected Sarpanch, in terms of the provisions of amended clause (b) of Sub-section (1A) of Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, (for short, 'the Act') if the motion of No Confidence is carried by a majority of not less than three-fourth of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the panchayat, the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch, as the case may be, and ratified before the special Gram Sabha by the secret ballot in the presence and under the Chairmanship of the Officer appointed for the purpose by the Collector, shall forthwith stop, exercising all the powers and, performing all the functions and duties of the office. So far as Upa-Sarpanch is concerned, the said amendment by way of sub-section (1A) is applicable to the Sarpanch directly elected and not to the Upa-Sarpanch. 6 The petitioners, in both these writ petitions, in terms of Section 35 (3-B) of the Act raised Disputes challenging validity of the Motions before the Collector by filing two separate applications. By order dated 31st December, 2020, the Collector, Osmanabad, has passed identical two separate orders directing to arrange the special meeting of the Gram Sabha and further appointed the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Tulzapur, as Presiding Officer to conduct the said special meeting of Gram Sabha. 7 The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as petitioner- Upa Sarpanch is concerned, no such directions are required to ratify the resolution of No Confidence Motion passed in the meeting by the Gram Panchayat. So far as petitioner -Sarpanch is concerned, the learned Counsel submits that in terms of Section 35 (3-B) of the Act, it is for the Collector to decide the validity of No Confidence Motion referred to him by way of disputes raised by the petitioners and in view of the same, direction issued by the Collector directing to conduct Special Gram Sabha meeting is highly unwarranted and uncalled for. 8 The learned Counsel submits that during pendency of these writ petitions, the Block Development Officer has conducted special meeting of Gram Sabha in terms of the directions issued by the Collector and accordingly, the majority of members of the Gram Sabha ratified the No Confidence Motion passed in the Gram Panchayat meeting. The learned Counsel submits that by these writ petitions, the petitioners also made a prayer to quash and set aside the said resolution passed in the Gram Panchayat meeting. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioners have raised various legal points to challenge validity of the No Confidence Motion, such as (i) the learned Tahsildar has conducted joint meeting to consider No Confidence Motion against the petitioners/ Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch; (ii) Further, in terms of amended provisions clause (c) of Section 35(1 A), such no confidence motion shall not be put for voting if it is proposed within two years from the date of election of Sarpanch or Upa Sarpanch, etc.. 9 The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with similar situation while deciding Writ Petition (St.) No.98237 of 2020. By order dated 22nd December, 2020, the Division Bench (Coram: RD.Dhanuka and Madhav Jamdar, JJ.) has remanded the matter to the Collector directing him to pass the order on merits without being influenced by the factum of resolution passed by the Gram Sabha thereby validating the resolution which is subject matter of the said dispute before the Collector. 10 The learned Counsel for Respondents No.3 to 8 submits that requisition of No Confidence Motion was moved on 07.08.2020 i.e. two years after the establishment of the Gram Panchayat. The learned Counsel submits that in terms of the Government Resolution dated 15.12.2020, the said period of two years is required to be counted from the first meeting of the Gram Panchayat after taking charge of the Gram Panchayat. In the instant case, petitioners - Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch have taken charge on 21.11.2017 and the No Confidence Motion was moved on 07.08.2020, which is after completion of period of two years. The learned Counsel submits that the special meeting was held on 13.08.2020 in the presence of the members of the Gram Panchayat, the Tahsildar, Tulzapur and in the said meeting resolution of No Confidence motion was ratified by the majority of the members. The learned Counsel submits that in terms of the order passed by the Collector, Osmanabad, the Block Development Officer has called the special meeting of Gram Sabha for ratifying the resolution of No Confidence Motion. The said meeting was called on 21.02.2020. The petitioners had also participated in the said process. The learned Counsel submits that in the special meeting, total 587 voters were present out of 742 voters and by secret ballot, the no confidence motion was ratified against both the petitioners. The said ratification was carried out by majority of votes consisting total 302 votes. The learned Counsel submits that these two writ petitions have become infructuous as the petitioners have challenged the decision of the Collector, dated 31.12.2020, which is already implemented and complied with. The learned Counsel submits that in view of the same, petitioners are removed from the post by following due process of law. The learned Counsel submits that these two writ petitions have become infructuous as the petitioners have challenged the decision of the Collector, dated 31.12.2020, which is already implemented and complied with. The learned Counsel submits that in view of the same, petitioners are removed from the post by following due process of law. The learned Counsel submits that it is not out of place to mention that out of eight members of the Gram Panchayat, six members have passed the No confidence motion against the petitioners. 11 The learned AGP has almost raised similar points, however, with one addition. He submits that due to outbreak of Covid-19 and elections of Gram Panchayats, the Gram Sabha meeting for ratification of resolution of No Confidence Motion could not be called. 12 The amended provisions of clause (b) sub-section (1A) of Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, are reproduced herein below, which are relevant for consideration of the present dispute. 35. Motion of no confidence: (1) .......................................... (1A) In respect of the panchayat to which the Sarpanch is directly elected under section 30A-1A, the provisions of this section shall apply with the following modifications:- (a) (b) If the motion of no-confidence is carried by a majority of not less than three-fourth of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the panchayat, the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch, as the case may be, and ratified before the special Gram Sabha by the secret ballot in the presence and under the Chairmanship of the Officer appointed for the purpose by the Collector, shall forthwith stop, exercising all the powers and, performing all the functions and duties of the office and thereupon such powers, functions and duties shall vest in the Upa-Sarpanch, in case the motion is carried out against the Sarpanch. 13 In terms of the said amended provisions, if the Sarpanch is directly elected, then resolution of no confidence motion, if any, to be ratified before the special Gram Sabha by secret ballot in the presence and under the Chairmanship of the Officer appointed for the purpose by the Collector. 13 In terms of the said amended provisions, if the Sarpanch is directly elected, then resolution of no confidence motion, if any, to be ratified before the special Gram Sabha by secret ballot in the presence and under the Chairmanship of the Officer appointed for the purpose by the Collector. In the instant case, though the No Confidence Motion was passed on 13.08.2020, however, till the dispute is referred by the petitioners to the Collector, challenging the validity of the said No Confidence Motion, no special Gram Sabha meeting was either called or conducted. It further appears that while disposing of the said dispute, otherwise than under the provisions of sub-section (3-B) of Section 35 of the Act, the Collector has directed to arrange a special Gram Sabha meeting under the Chairmanship of Block Development Officer for ratification of the No Confidence motion. It is pertinent that the said ratification in terms of the amended provisions of sub-section (1A) of Section 35 is necessary only in case of Sarpanch, who is directly elected and not in respect of the Upa-Sarpanch. Even then, the learned Collector has issued directions for conducting special Gram Sabha meeting in respect of petitioner- Upa -Sarpanch also for ratification of the No Confidence motion. In both the matters, even though the learned Collector has discussed the various grounds raised by the petitioners, challenging the validity of the No Confidence Motion by referring the disputes, however, without adhering to those grounds and deciding anything on it, the learned Collector has simply given directions to hold special Gram Sabha meeting. In terms of provisions of sub-section (3-B) of Section of the Act, if the Sarpanch, or, as the case may be, Upa-Sarpanch, desires to dispute the validity of the motion carried under sub-section (3), he shall, within seven days from the date on which such motion was carried, refer the dispute to the Collector who shall decide it as far as possible, within thirty days from the date on which it was received by him and his decision shall be final. The learned Collector, instead of deciding that dispute, directed to hold the special Gram Sabha meeting under the Chairmanship of Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Tulzapur. The learned Collector, instead of deciding that dispute, directed to hold the special Gram Sabha meeting under the Chairmanship of Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Tulzapur. Though during pendency of these writ petitions, the Gram Sabha was conducted under the Chairmanship of Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Tulzapur and the said No Confidence Motion was ratified by majority of villagers in the special Gram Sabha meeting, however, in the event if the Gram Sabha would have voted against the No Confidence Motion and if the Gram Sabha would not have ratified the said No Confidence Motion, then the situation would have been very confusing, since the learned Collector has not decided the said disputes finally. 14 In the case of Mrs.Samidha Janardan Kudalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (Writ Petition St.No.98737 of 2020, decided on 22nd December, 2020), the Division Bench, in paragraphs no. 3 to 5 of the order, has made following observations: "3 It is case of the Petitioner that the Collector, however, directed the Tahsildar to convene special Gram Sabha for purpose of validating the said resolution which was subject matter of the said dispute before the Collector. Based on the said directions, the Gram Panchayat called Gram Sabha. The Tahsildar issued notice for convening Gram Sabha on 23/11/2020. On 23/11/2020, the Gram Sabha validated resolution of No Confidence against the Petitioner which was subject matter of dispute before the Collector. 4 In our view since the Collector has not decided the dispute filed by the Petitioner under section 35 (3B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, the Collector should not have issued any direction to the Tahsildar to convene Gram Sabha for validating the said resolution which was subject matter of the dispute and to make said dispute infructuous. 5 The impugned decision taken by the Gram Sabha on 23/11/2020 validating earlier resolution dated 28/09/2020 is thus quashed and set aside. The learned Collector shall dispose of the said dispute filed by the Petitioner annexed at Exhibit-F (Colly.) to the petition within eight weeks from today after hearing the Petitioner and on its own merits. 5 The impugned decision taken by the Gram Sabha on 23/11/2020 validating earlier resolution dated 28/09/2020 is thus quashed and set aside. The learned Collector shall dispose of the said dispute filed by the Petitioner annexed at Exhibit-F (Colly.) to the petition within eight weeks from today after hearing the Petitioner and on its own merits. The Petitioner shall remain present before the learned Collector on 05/01/2021 at 11 am." 15 Furthermore, in para no.6 of the order, the Division Bench, when it was brought to its notice that the charge of the Sarpanch has already been handed over, further directed that handing over of charge would depend upon the outcome of the dispute, as may be resolved by the learned Collector. 16 In view of the same, in the identical fact situation, this Court is left with no other choice but to relegate the matter to the learned Collector for deciding the disputes, as referred by the petitioners, afresh. 17 So far as additional prayer clause "A-l" inserted by way of an amendment for quashing and setting aside the Gram Sabha Resolution is concerned, if the order passed by the Collector, directing the Block Development Officer to conduct the Gram Sabha is set aside, the subsequent Resolution passed in the Gram Sabha would be meaningless. In view of the same, relief in terms of amended prayer clause "A-l" need not be granted. 18 Hence, the following order: (i) Both the writ petitions are hereby partly allowed in terms of prayer clause "A". (ii) The judgment and order dated 31.12.2020 in Appeal No.2020/Sa Pra/Gra Pa Ni/Ka-l/Kavi-427 and the judgment and order dated 31.12.2020 in Appeal No.2020/Sa Pra/Gra Pa Ni/Ka-l/Kavi-428, passed by the learned District Collector, Osmanabad, are hereby quashed and set aside. 18 Hence, the following order: (i) Both the writ petitions are hereby partly allowed in terms of prayer clause "A". (ii) The judgment and order dated 31.12.2020 in Appeal No.2020/Sa Pra/Gra Pa Ni/Ka-l/Kavi-427 and the judgment and order dated 31.12.2020 in Appeal No.2020/Sa Pra/Gra Pa Ni/Ka-l/Kavi-428, passed by the learned District Collector, Osmanabad, are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Appeal No.2020/Sa Pra/Gra Pa Ni/Ka-l/Kavi-427 and Appeal No.2020/Sa Pra/Gra Pa Ni/Ka-l/Kavi-428 are restored to its original number, with the following directions: (a) The respective petitioners and Respondents No.3 to 8 shall appear before the learned District Collector, Osmanabad, on 05th March, 2021 at 11.00 a.m. and the learned District Collector, Osmanabad, shall decide both the disputes within prescribed period, as provided under Section 35(3B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, from the date of appearance of the parties, as directed above, on its own merits without being influenced by the factum of Resolutions passed by the Gram Sabha, thereby validating the Resolutions, which are the subject matter of the said disputes raised before the Collector. (b) So far as petitioner - Upa Sarpanch in Writ Petition No.223 of 2021 is concerned, the learned District Collector shall decide the dispute on its own merits irrespective of ratification by the Gram Sabha, which is not the legal requirement to consider the No Confidence Motion against the Upa-Sarpanch. 19 Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.