The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of ratification in the Gram Sabha for a no confidence motion passed against a directly elected Sarpanch, as per the amended provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally at admission stage.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the no confidence motion passed against him. The petitioner is directly elected Sarpanch in terms of the provisions of Section 30A-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act 1958 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as the "Village Panchayat Act") in the general elections of the Gram Panchayat held on 17.10.2017. The respondent Nos. 4 to 13 herein have moved the motion of no confidence against the petitioner after giving requisite notice dated 13.10.2020 thereof to the Tahsildar. Consequently, the respondent Tahsildar has convened a special meeting of the Panchayat for considering the motion of no confidence. On 19.10.2020 no confidence motion was passed in the special meeting against the petitioner and the said motion was carried out by the majority of the members as prescribed under Section 35 of the Village Panchayat Act.

3. In terms of the provisions of Section 35 sub-section 3(B) of the Village Panchayat Act the petitioner has challenged the validity of the said no confidence motion before the respondent No.2 Collector. By order dated 31.12.2020 the Collector, Osmanabad upheld the no confidence motion carried out against the petitioner by giving direction to hold the special meeting of the Gram Sabha to ratify the said no confidence motion.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the amended provisions of Section 30A-1A of the Village Panchayat Act, every panchayat shall have a Sarpanch who shall be elected by the persons whose names are included in the list of voters for village under Section 12 of the Village Panchayat Act. The said amended provision is about directly elected Sarpanch and in sub-sections 2 to 6 of Section 30A-1A the procedure is also prescribed. Learned counsel submits that Section 35 of the Village Panchayat Act is also amended by inserting sub-section (1A) wherein it is prescribed that if the motion of no confidence is carried out by three-fourth of the total number of 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. Learned counsel submits that in the instant case, no confidence motion was not ratified before the Gram Sabha by the secret ballot as per the amended provisions of Section 1-A of Section 35 of the Village Panchayat Act. Learned counsel submits that even though when the dispute was referred to the Collector, after noticing the same, the respondent Collector has simply given directions to arrange the special meeting of the Gram Sabha. The said no confidence motion was passed on 19.10.2020 and by the impugned order dated 31.12.2020 the Collector has given direction for calling upon the special meeting of the Gram Sabha by appointing the Block Development Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Osmanabad as a Presiding Officer of the said Sabha. Learned counsel submits that till this date no special meeting of Gram Sabha was called upon and there is no ratification of the no confidence motion. Learned counsel submits that the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner thus deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 13 submits that by the majority of votes the no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has lost the confidence of the members of the Gram Panchayat and after due compliance of the procedure prescribed, the no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that even though the opportunity was given to the petitioner to speak in the special meet