R.M. Savant, J.

1. The issue which at most times is central to a challenge to an order passed confirming the motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch/Upa-Sarpanch has been referred to a larger bench of this Court by the Division Bench of this Court (A.S. Oka and S.C. Gupte, JJ.) vide its order dated 24th January, 2014. The Division Bench has crystallized the said issue as under:--

"Whether failure to formally move and second a motion of no confidence as required by Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 would render the motion of no confidence carried by the requisite majority under section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, invalid?"

The issue therefore revolves around whether Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings-) Rules, 1959 is directory or mandatory in the context of a motion of no confidence passed under section 35(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (for short "the BVP Act"). The genesis of the reference lies in the disagreement of the Division Bench of A.S. Oka and S.C. Gupte, JJ. With the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court (A.M. Khanwilkar and K.K. Tated, JJ.) in the matter of Vishnu Ramchan