Compliance with statutory provisions and loss of confidence of the majority Councillors are crucial in passing a motion of no-confidence under Section 55-1A of the Act of 1965.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the motion of no-confidence dated 26.12.2022 that has been moved against the petitioner who was holding the post of Vice-President at Nagar Panchayat, Mohadi. The said motion is challenged as being contrary to the provisions of Section 55-1A of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, the Act of 1965).

3. Nagar Panchayat, Mohadi comprises of 19 Councillors of which 17 are elected and 2 are nominated. In the First General Body Meeting of the Nagar Panchayat, Mohadi, the petitioner was elected as its Vice-President on 19.01.2022. 9 elected Councillors not being satisfied with the discharge of functions as Vice-President moved a requisition on 20.12.2022 against the petitioner proposing to move a motion of no-confidence against him. On 21.12.2022 the President of the Municipal Council convened a special meeting on 26.12.2022 for considering the requisition. In the special meeting held on 26.12.2022 a motion of no-confidence came to be moved. 12 Councillors voted in favour of the motion while 5 opposed the same. Since the motion was supported by two-thirds of the Councillors entitled to vote, it was declared that the petitioner had lost the confidence of the Councillors and hence was liable to be removed under Section 55-1A of the Act of 1965. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the said motion.

4. Shri R.M. Bhangde, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been removed as Vice President in a manner contrary to Section 55-1A of the Act of 1965. According to him, the manner in which such requisition was required to be considered was not indicated in Section 55-1A. In absence of any procedure being indicated, the Maharashtra Municipal Councils (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1966 (for short, the Rules of 1966) and especially Rules 17 to 24 ought to have been followed. It was submitted the Chief Officer who was the Presiding Officer merely referred to the provisions of Section 55-1A in the said meeting and immediately thereafter the motion was put to vote by show of hands. The motion was neither proposed nor seconded. No opportunity was granted to the petitioner to put-forth his say on the said motion and merely on the basis of show of hands it was stated that the motion was carried. The Presiding Officer was obliged to grant an opportunity of speaking to the petitioner against whom the motion was moved. Even if such opportunity was not specifically claimed, it was required to be granted by the Presiding Officer. The learned counsel referred to the decisions in Viswas Pandurang Mokal vs. Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu and Others, 2011 (3) Mh. L.J. 500 and Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale vs. Navnath Tukaram Kakde and Others, 2014 (6) Mh. L.J. 804 to submit that by failing to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to address the Councillors and explain his position, the motion of no-confidence had been vitiated. He also invited our attention to the decision in Ashok Krishnakant Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2000 (4) Mh. L.J. 197 where the importance of requiring the person against whom such motion was moved to address the members. Since the merits of the motion had been affected by failure to grant an opportunity to the petitioner, the same was vitiated. Reference was also made to the decision in Vijay Ramchandra Katkar vs. Group Gram Panchayat, Pali and Others, 2010 (4) Mh. L.J. 497. The learned counsel sought to distinguish the judgment of the Division Bench in Ramkrushna Gangaram Rathi vs. Kisan Zingraji Madke, 1970 Mh. L.J. 836 by urging that the issue considered therein was distinct from what was being urged in the present writ petition. It was thus submitted that the impugned motion of no-confidence was liable to be set aside and the petitioner ought to be reinstated