The interpretation of procedural rules and legal provisions governing the conduct of a no-confidence motion in a Village Panchayat.

JUDGMENT :

1. Issue notice to the respondents. Learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent nos.1 to 3. Contesting respondent no.10 appeared on caveat and waives service of notice.

2. Civil Application for amendment is allowed. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

3. Considering the points involved in the petition, the matter is heard finally at the admission stage.

4. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

5. The petitioner was the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat. She has been removed from the post of Sarpanch by a no-confidence motion passed on 22.12.2023 in an extraordinary meeting convened on the notice of the members of the Village Panchayat for no confidence. Being aggrieved thereby, she had filed an application before the District Collector on various grounds. The District Collector rejected her petition; hence, the petitioner approached this Court.

6. The petitioner has assailed the no-confidence motion on the following grounds :

(i) The resolution of the no-confidence motion was not moved for voting.

(ii) The meeting of no confidence was held without granting the petitioner at least three days' notice.

(iii) Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959 (‘Rules of 1959’ for short) is mandatory. However, it was not followed.

(iv) The motion of no confidence was neither proposed nor convened as per Rule 18 of the Rules of 1959.

(v) After a motion has been placed before the meeting under Rule 18 for consideration, the mover should speak in support of the motion, and the seconder may either follow or reserve his speech for a later stage of the debate thereon as prescribed under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1959.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the Rules 18, 23 and 26 of the Rules of 1959 has vehemently argued that the minutes of the meetings are silent on these legal requirements. There was a bare discussion in the meeting the procedure adopted by the presiding officer was not known to the law. Therefore, the democratically elected members must be protected. Removal of the elected member without following the due procedure of law carves a stigma on him. She had filed a bunch of documents. However, they were not taken into consideration.

8. Section 35 of the Village Panchayats Act confers a right upon the candidate to speak in the meeting. The Collector did not consider the legal aspects and erroneously dismissed the petition. To bolster his arguments, he relied on the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 260, Viswas Pandurang Mokal Vs. Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu and Others, 2011 (3) Mh.L.J. 500 and Vijay Ramchandra Katkar Vs. Group Gram Panchayat, Pali and Others, 2010 (4) Mh.L.J. 497. He prayed to allow the petition.

9. Learned counsel for respondent no.10 has vehemently argued that the Rules of 1959, are not mandatory and this issue is no more res integra. In the case of Viswas (supra), the Hon'ble Full Bench has laid down the law that Rule 17 of the Rules of 1959, is directory. The meeting was convened following the due procedure of law. On reading the minutes of the meeting, it could be easily inferred that the opportunity to address was given to the petitioner.

The subject was brought to the notice of the members by the presiding officer. The petitioner was informed about the subject; hence, she had asked to drop the proceeding and vote by secret ballots. The presiding officer has decided on her request, which is reflected in the meeting minutes. He would submit that something here and there would not vitiate the no-confidence motion. The rule of the majority would apply. Once the majority goes against the Sarpanch or Upa-sarpanch, he has to follow the mandate of the majority. He also argued that the notice under Section 35 of the Act cannot be read from the Rules. Relying on the case of Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale v. Navnath Tukaram Kakde, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1483, he argued that moving a motion by proposal