Back
ARUN R. PEDNEKER
Pundlik S/o. Tulashiram Sapkale – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The Petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 12.01.2023, passed by the learned Collector, Jalgaon in Dispute Application No. 66 of 2022, wherein the Petitioner - Sarpanch of village Kanalda was disqualified under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 for not holding the monthly meeting for the month of October 2021.
2. Heard Mr. Jitendra V. Patil, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. N.T. Bhagat, learned AGP for Respondent/State, Mr. Atmaram J. Patil, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 5 and 17 and Mr. D.P. Palodkar holding for Mr. Paresh B. Patil (Borse), learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.6 to 16.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the petition can be summarized as under:-
The circumstances leading to the non-convening of the meeting constituted a 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of Section 36, thereby saving the petitioner from disqualification.
Non-performance of statutory duty does not lead to automatic disqualification, and an elected member can only be removed in exceptional circumstances after being explained the specific charge against....
The court held that a no confidence motion passed during a meeting convened without proper notice is invalid and nullifies the decision taken.
Mandatory notice to the panchayat in an inquiry under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act is essential, and failure to comply renders the inquiry report and subsequent orders inva....
Disqualification of Councillors requires formal decision by the Collector to invalidate their participation in a no-confidence meeting.
The court ruled that mere errors or irregularities in the discharge of duties do not constitute misconduct unless they are detrimental to the institution's prestige or involve willful misconduct.
The requirement of Rule 17 in proposing and seconding the motion cannot impinge upon the validity of the motion of no confidence, which has otherwise been passed by fulfilling the requirements of Sec....
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
