The legal requirements for a 'no confidence' motion notice and the need for a proposer and seconder for the motion are interpreted as directory, not mandatory.

R.V. Ghuge, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties and heard finally.

2. The petitioner Sarpanch is aggrieved by judgment and order delivered by the Additional Collector, Nanded dated 30-10-2014, by which his appeal No. 53 has been rejected under Section 35(3-B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'MVP Act'). Having suffered passing of 'no confidence' motion, he had moved an appeal before the Additional Collector, which has been turned down by the impugned judgment.

3. The contentions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner can be summarised in brief as follows :-

a] The petitioner was Sarpanch of Gram panchayat Chidgiri, Tq. Bhokar.

b] Earlier, a notice for moving no confidence motion dated 11-02-2014 culminated into a special meeting on 17-02-2014 when the motion was passed by seven votes as against two votes.

c] The petitioner had challenged the said outcome of the special meeting dated 17-02-2014 by filing an appeal No. 31 before the Additional Collector, Nanded and the said appeal has been allowed by the judgment and order dated 18-06-2014.

d] It is informed that the Writ Petition challenging the said decision dated 18-06-2014 is pending before this Court and no interim orders have been passed.

e] A requisition for moving the no confidence motion was filed on 05-07-2014 by more than 1/3rd members of the said Gram panchayat.

f] The Tahsildar issued a notice for convening a special meeting on 11-07-2014.

g] The said motion was passed by 2/3rd majority since seven members voted in favour of the motion and only two members voted against the motion.

h] The petitioner moved Gram panchayat Appeal No. 53 before the District Collector, Nanded on 16-07-2014.

i] The contentions of the petitioner in the said appeal were as follows :-

i] No confidence motion cannot be moved within six months from the date of the earlier no confidence motion (special meeting).

ii] The no confidence motion was neither formally proposed nor seconded by any member of the Gram panchayat.

iii] The notice for convening a special meeting on 11-07-2014 did not follow the mandate of a minimum of four days notice to the Sarpanch against whom the motion was moved.

j] The Additional Collector considered the contentions of the petitioner and concluded that the notice for convening the special meeting on 11-07-2014 was served upon the petitioner two days prior to the date of the meeting (which was an admission on the part of the petitioner in his appeal)

k] The Additional Collector also concluded that the earlier meeting in which no confidence motion was passed dated 17-02-2014 has been set aside since the very notice issued for convening the meeting was defective and could not have been said to be a valid notice issued by the Tahsildar. It was, therefore, concluded that the meeting dated 11-07-2014 was rightly and legally conveyed.

l] The Additional Collector in the impugned judgment has also concluded that a formal proposer or seconder to the requisition for moving no confidence motion under Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules 1959 is not necessary.

m] The petitioner contends that the conclusions drawn by the Additional Collector are against the MVP Act, the Meeting Rules, 1959 and the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence) Rules, 1975.

It is, therefore, prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned judgment of the Additional Collector, be quashed and set aside.

4. The learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 has pointed out that the 1975 Rules did not mandate a minimum of four days notice so as to render the Tahsildar under an obligation to serve the notice for convening the special meeting, on the petitioner facing the 'no confidence' motion, at least four days prior to the meeting.

5. The learned A.G.P. has placed reliance upon the reported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Hindurao Dnyanu Shirtode & another Vs. The State of Mah