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 Section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Sonali Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. A. P. Vanarase, learned AGP appearing for the State/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Naphade, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4-Sarpanch.

2. By way of the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 31st July 2023 passed by the Collector, Raigad-Alibag in Gram Panchayat Dispute Application No.12 of 2023. The said Dispute Application has been filed under Section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (“said Act”) challenging the legality and validity of the motion of no confidence dated 5th June 2023 moved against the Respondent No.4-Sarpanch. By the impugned order dated 31st July 2023, the Collector-Raigad has allowed the Dispute Application on the ground that the said motion of no confidence carried on 5th June 2023 against Respondent No.4-Sarpanch is illegal. The only reason given by the Collector to arrive at said conclusion is that the meeting in which the said motion of no confidence was carried, had not been conducted in accordance with Rules 17 to 26 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 (“said Rules”).

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale v. Navnath Tukaram Kakde, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1483 : (2014) 6 Mah LJ 804 (FB) to contend that the said Rules are not mandatory. It is her submission that six out of total seven members of the Gram Panchayat have voted against the Respondent No.4-Sarpanch and therefore, it is in compliance with the requirements under Section 35 of the said Act. She pointed out the minutes of the said meeting dated 5th June 2023 annexed to the Writ Petition at pages 34-39. She submitted that the motion of no confidence is passed in accordance with Section 35 of the said Act and therefore, the order dated 31st July 2023 passed by the Collector deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Naphade, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4-Sarpanch pointed out Sub Sections 1 and 2 of Section 35 of the said Act and Rules 17 to 26 of the said Rules. He submitted that what is contemplated is a thorough discussion and an informed decision by the members of the Gram Panchayat. He also contended that the said Rules are mandatory and therefore, supported the order passed by the Collector. He submitted that what is contemplated under the scheme of Section 35 of the said Act is that members should make an informed decision and therefore, an opportunity is required to be given to the Respondent No.4-Sarpanch to submit her reply in the meeting. He relied on paragraph No.4 (vi) and (vii) as set out in the petition to contend that there was no thorough discussion whatsoever and the discussion was limited only with respect to the manner in which voting should be conducted viz. whether it should be an open or a secret voting. To substantiate his contention, he relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Manoj Ghanshyamdas Banode v. Presiding Officer/Tahsildar, Dhamangaon, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 85 : (2019) 2 Bom CR 249.

5. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to set out certain factual aspects. On 15th January 2021, the Petitioner, Respondent No.4-Sarpanch and other five members were elected as members of Group Gram Panchayat Shedsai, Roha, Raigad and on 10th February 2023, Respondent No.4 was elected as its Sarpanch. On 31st May 2023, six out of seven elected members submitted the notice of motion of no confidence against Respondent No.4-Sarpanch to the Respondent No.3-Tahsildar. On 31st May 2023, Tahsildar convened a special meeting to be held on 5th June 2023 by issuing notices to all seven elected members. Notice issued to Respondent No.4 has been accepted by her mother-in-law on 1st June 2023. The said meeting was held on 5th June 2023