IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
Sow. Manjushatai Balaji Shete and Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 15209 Of 2023
Decided On : 12-12-2023
No Confidence Motion - Grampanchayat Election - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, Section 35, Section 39 - The court rejected the contention that passing a no confidence motion on allegations would ipso facto amount to an ouster on account of disgraceful conduct under Section 39. The court highlighted the distinct features of Sections 35 and 39 and emphasized the stringent conditions and specific procedure enshrined in Section 39 for removal on account of disgraceful conduct.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, elected members of Grampanchayat Jambhala, filed a petition apprehending the re-election of the former Sarpanch, who was ousted by a no confidence motion, and being the sole Scheduled Caste woman candidate, she would be elected unopposed.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the contention that the passing of a no confidence motion on allegations would amount to an ouster on account of disgraceful conduct under Section 39. It emphasized the distinct features of Sections 35 and 39 and highlighted the stringent conditions and specific procedure enshrined in Section 39 for removal on account of disgraceful conduct.
Issues: The main issue was whether the passing of a no confidence motion on allegations would ipso facto amount to an ouster on account of disgraceful conduct under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the passing of a no confidence motion on allegations does not ipso facto amount to an ouster on account of disgraceful conduct under Section 39. It emphasized the distinct features of Sections 35 and 39 and highlighted the stringent conditions and specific procedure enshrined in Section 39 for removal on account of disgraceful conduct.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found it to be without merit.
ORDER :
(Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :
1. Three persons are Petitioners before us, who are the elected members of the Grampanchayat Jambhala, Tq. Hadgaon Dist. Nanded. Respondent No.8 is the former Sarpanch of the said village, who suffered no confidence motion on 07.11.2023 by 3/4th majority. She was ousted. Thereafter, the post of Sarpanch has been put up for election scheduled on 14.12.2023. The post is reserved for ‘Scheduled Caste woman category’. Respondent No.8 is the only Scheduled Caste woman, amongst all the elected members of the Grampanchayat. This Petition has been filed by the Petitioners on an apprehension that she would again contest on 14th December, 2023 and being the sole Scheduled Caste Woman candidate, she would be again elected as a Sarpanch, unopposed.
2. The Petitioners submit that when Respondent No.8 Sarpanch was ousted by a no confidence motion, it would be unbecoming on her part to re-contest the election and under fortuitous circumstances, she would be surely elected, if she contests, as she is the only ‘Scheduled Caste woman’ elected member of the Grampanchayat. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sukhwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2013 (5) Law Herald 4067.
3. Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, Maharashtra Act) reads as under:
“(1A) In respect of the panchayat to which the Sarpanch is directly elected under section 30A- 1A, the provisions of this section shall apply with the following modifications:-
(a) in sub-section (1), for the words "one-third" the words "two third" shall be substituted;
(b) in sub-section (3), for the portion beginning with the words "If the motion" and ending with the words "against the Sarpanch;" the following portion shall be substituted, namely :-
“If the motion of no-confidence is carried by a majority of not less than three-fourth of the total number of the 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 and thereupon such powers, functions and duties shall vest in the Upa-Sarpanch, in case the motion is carried out against the Sarpanch”.
(c) for the fourth proviso, the following provisos shall be substituted, namely :-
“Provided also that, no such motion of no-confidence shall be brought within a period of two years from the date of election of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch and before the six months preceding the date on which the term of panchayat expires :
Provided also that, if the no-confidence motion fails, then no motion shall be brought before the passage of time of next two years.”
(2) Within seven days from the date of receipt by him of the notice under sub-section (1), the Tahasildar, shall convene a special meeting of the panchayat at a time to be appointed by him and he shall preside over such meeting. At such special meeting, the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch against whom the motion of no confidence is moved shall have a right to speak or otherwise to take part in the proceedings at the meeting (including the right to vote).
(3) If the motion is carried by a majority of not less than three-fourth] of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the panchayat or the Up
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 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....
If Sarapnach fails to call such meeting, the Secretary of the panchayat shall forthwith make a report thereof the competent authority and thereupon the competent authority shall call a meeting of the....
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....
No confidence motion applies to a nominated officiating Sarpanch under the Panchayati Raj Act, ensuring accountability in governance.
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 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....
Passing illegal resolution to divest Sarpanch of signing authority despite statutory bar and caution, and deferring welfare funds thereby, constitutes willful misconduct warranting removal of Up-Sarp....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the removal of a Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch must adhere to the prescribed procedure under the Panchayati Raj Act, and the will of the majority ....
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.