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, and any procedural deficiencies do not invalidate the motion if it has been passed by fulfilling these statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT :

1. On the earlier occasion, I have heard submissions of Mr. Mhaispurkar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. Kurund, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and Mr. Vanarsase, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent – State.

2. The Petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Collector, Solapur in Grampanchayat Dispute Application Nos. 33 of 2023 and 34 of 2023 filed under Sections 35(3-B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “said Act”).

3. By the impugned order, the Collector, Solapur has dismissed the Dispute Applications and held that the ‘Motion of No Confidence’ has been validly passed against the Petitioners i.e. Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch respectively of Grampanchayat Ukkadgaon, Taluka - Barshi, District - Solapur.

4. It is the submission of Mr. Mhaispurkar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that no Resolution was moved in the Special Meeting called for discussing ‘Motion of No Confidence’. He submits that notice given to the Tahsildar is merely a notice. He relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Viswas Pandurang Mokal Vs. Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu & Ors., reported in (2011) 3 Mh L.J. 500. He submitted that moving the motion i.e. Resolution of ‘Motion of No Confidence’ is mandatory. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Vs. Sheshrao & Ors. reported in 1998 (9) SCC 113 and submitted that the bar under Section 35(3-A) of the said Act would be attracted, if the previous ‘Motion of No Confidence’ has been defeated because of want of the requisite majority for passing the same. He relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prakash Barku Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1998) 1 Mh LJ 43. However, he submitted that the said decision is distinguished in the case of Ravindra S/o. Sukhdeo Sanap and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2014) 4 Mh LJ 443. He submitted that in spite of the Full Bench decision in the case of Shri Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale Vs. Shri Navnath Tukaram Kakade & Ors., reported in (2015) 1 ALL MR 497 (F.B.), the infraction that has occurred in the present case is on account of the motion not being formally proposed and seconded. He submitted that although the Respondents have heavily relied on the decision of Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale (supra) yet even the Full Bench has not held that moving of the motion is not necessary as provided under Section 35(1) of the said Act. He submitted that the ratio of the Full Bench decision in the case of Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale (supra) in any case, has held that validity of the motion just otherwise by fulfilling requirement of Section 35(3) of the said Act presupposes that Sections 35(1) and 35(2) of the said Act are complied with. He submitted that although separate notices were given for moving ‘Motion of No Confidence’ against the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, both the meetings were called at one and the same time i.e. at 11.00 am. It is apparent that both the motions were passed at the same time. Thus, prejudice has been caused to the Petitioners.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Kurund, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 submitted that said ‘Motion of No Confidence’ has been passed by an overwhelming majority. Seven members, out of nine members have voted in favour of the ‘Motion of No Confidence’. He submitted that as the requirements of Section 35 of the said Act are fulfilled, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale (supra) and more particularly on paragraph 21 of the same.

6. Mr. Vanarase, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent – State supported the impugned order.

7. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to set out relevant portion of S