Back
S. V. GANGAPURWALA, SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI
ASHRUBA NAMDEO KHARMATE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
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
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
