IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ.
ASHRUBA NAMDEO KHARMATE – Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
W.P. No. 1971 of 2020
Decided On : 11-03-2022
Village Panchayat Act - No Confidence Motion - 30A-1A, 35(1-A)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a directly elected Sarpanch, challenged the vires of section 35(1-A) of the Maharashtra Village Gram Panchayat Act, 1959, which allowed members of the Gram Panchayat to move a no confidence motion against the Sarpanch.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provision for a no confidence motion against the directly elected Sarpanch was rational, reasonable, and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. It emphasized the democratic principle of majority rule and the ultimate power of the villagers to ratify the no confidence motion.
Issues: The issues involved the authority of the Gram Panchayat members to move a no confidence motion against a directly elected Sarpanch and the constitutionality of this provision under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provision for a no confidence motion against the directly elected Sarpanch was justified, as it provided a check and balance by requiring a 2/3rd majority vote by the members and ratification by the Gram Sabha (villagers). It emphasized the democratic principle of majority will and the need for accountability of the Sarpanch to the Panchayat and villagers.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed.
JUDGMENT :
S.V. Gangapurwala, J.
1. The petitioner is a directly elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Bavi, Tal. Shirur Kasar, Dist. Beed. No confidence motion is passed against him by the members of the Gram Panchayat.
2. The petitioner by filing the present writ petition has assailed the vires of section 35(1-A) of the Maharashtra Village Gram Panchayat Act, 1959 (in short ‘Village Panchayat Act’) to the extent of giving authority to the members of the Gram Panchayat to move no confidence motion against directly elected Sarpanch.
3. Mr. Thombre, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to section 30-A(1-A) of the Village Gram Panchayat Act, the petitioner is elected as a Sarpanch by persons whose names are included in the list of voters for the Gram Panchayat, Bavi. The petitioner is not elected by the members of the Gram Panchayat, but by the villagers. As the petitioner is elected by the villagers and not by the members of the Gram Panchayat, the members of the Gram Panchayat cannot exercise powers to move a motion of no confidence against him. According to the learned counsel, it is only people, who elect would have power to move motion of no confidence. The same would be necessary so that the Sarpanch is allowed to function without the interference of the persons, who enjoy political patronage of the various political parties.
4. The learned counsel submits that under section 35(1-A) of the Village Gram Panchayat Act, the powers are given to the members of the Gram Panchayat to pass a motion of no confidence. The same is against the very purpose and the object for which the provision of section 30-A(1-A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act is introduced. The learned counsel submits that if these members of the Gram Panchayat are allowed to exercise powers to move no confidence motion against the directly elected Sarpanch, then, the handful members of the Gram Panchayat would be sitting over the mandate of the entire village. The same would be unreasonable, irrational and not in consonance with the object of directly electing Sarpanch by the majority of the villagers. The learned counsel submits that the proviso to section 35(1-A) of the Village Gram Panchayat Act to that extent, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
5. Mr. D.R. Kale, the Incharge Additional Government Pleader submits that the members of the Gram Panchayat are aware of the functioning of the Gram Panchayat and the manner of working of the Sarpanch. In view of that, the members of the Gram Panchayat would exercise their right. Even otherwise, the motion of no confidence moved by the members of the Panchayat has to be ratified by the Gram Sabha and unless the same is ratified by the Gram Sabha, the motion of no confidence does not come into effect. So eventually, power vests with the villagers, who have elected Sarpanch to express their no confidence. The provision is perfectly legal and the same is not arbitrary.
6. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Before we proceed to deal with the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions under section 30-A-1-A and section 35(1-A) of the Village Panchayat Act:
(1) After the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 2017 (Mah. LIV of 2018) in respect of the Panchayat to which the general election is to be held, subject to provisions of sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of section 30, 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.
(2) Election of the Sarpanch shall be held simultaneously with the general elections of the Panchayat and the procedure regarding holding of elections to the Panchayat shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to such election.
(3) If at an election, no Sarpanch is elected, a
The main legal principle established is that the provision for a no confidence motion against a directly elected Sarpanch is rational, reasonable, and in line with democratic principles, providing ac....
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 provision....
The immunity from no confidence motions under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act applies to the post of Sarpanch, not the individual, allowing motions against subsequent Sarpanchs within the stip....
A Sarpanch removed by a motion of no-confidence is not statutorily barred from contesting a by-election for the same post under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
The court's decision was based on the finding that the petitioner had misused powers and authorities given to the local body, and there was no reason to interfere in the impugned motion of no confide....
Legislative provisions regarding No Confidence Motions do not require debate; removal procedures must be adhered to, and gender protections under the Constitution do not exempt elected officials from....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the 'Motion of No Confidence' must fulfill the mandatory requirements set out in Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, a....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.