Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH
S.G. MEHARE, J.
Shila W/o Vijay Chavan – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 613, 614 of 2024
Decided On : 23-01-2024
No-Confidence Motion - Village Panchayat - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, Section 35 - Rules 1959, Rules 17, 21, 22, 26 - The court discussed the applicability of meeting rules, the essential requirements for passing a no-confidence motion, the procedure for voting by secret ballots, and the rights of the petitioners. The court found that Rules 1959 apply to the meeting of a no-confidence motion, proposer and seconder are required, the Presiding Officer is not bound to invite secret ballot voting, the rights of the petitioners were not violated, and the impugned resolution and orders of the Collector were free from infirmity, illegality, and perversity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of a village Panchayat, faced a no-confidence motion. They objected to the notice and the meeting procedure, and the resolution was impugned before the District Collector, Jalna. The petitioners argued that their rights were violated, and the resolution was mechanically passed without following the meeting rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned resolution and orders of the Collector were free from infirmity, illegality, and perversity. Both Writ Petitions were dismissed, and the authority was not restrained from proceeding with the appointment of new Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch of the village.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of meeting rules, the essential requirements for passing a no-confidence motion, the procedure for voting by secret ballots, and the rights of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Rules 1959 apply to the meeting of a no-confidence motion, proposer and seconder are required, the Presiding Officer is not bound to invite secret ballot voting, the rights of the petitioners were not violated, and the impugned resolution and orders of the Collector were free from infirmity, illegality, and perversity.
Final Decision: Both Writ Petitions were dismissed, and the authority was not restrained from proceeding with the appointment of new Sarpanch and Upa-sarpanch of the village.
JUDGMENT :
S.G. MEHARE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. The petitioners were Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of village Panchayat consisting of eleven members. Seven village panchayat members submitted a notice under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, for no-confidence against both of them on 3rd October 2023. They have assigned the reasons for the no-confidence motion in the notice. The Tahsildar issued notice to both the petitioners. The petitioners received the notice. They were present in the meeting dated 10.10.2023, specially convened for the no-confidence motion. Both petitioners submitted their say in writing. In the meeting, the resolution of a no-confidence motion was passed against both the petitioners by 3/4th majority. The said resolution was impugned before the District Collector, Jalna. The District Collector confirmed the resolution and dismissed the appeal.
3. The petitioners have objected that a notice of no-confidence motion does not mention that it was a notice of no-confidence motion, and the rules under which the said notice was issued were also not mentioned therein. The notice of a no-confidence motion was received two days prior to the meeting; therefore, they did not have sufficient time to prepare. The petitioners have submitted their say on the allegations levelled against them in writing. However, there was no whisper of the discussion on the submissions of the petitioners, and the resolution of a no-confidence motion was mechanically passed. The vehement argument has been advanced that both the petitioners were asked to vote by secret ballot in writing. However, the no-confidence resolution did not reflect that Tahsildar put the subject for discussion in the meeting. Since the intimation was not given to the members, they were unaware of the demand for secret votes by ballots. The resolution was silent about the demand for votes by secret ballots. The Tahsildar, who was presiding over the meeting, did not ask about the voting by secret ballot in the meeting. Hence, members had no occasion to make a demand. No orders were passed on their application asking for the voting by secret ballots. The motion of a no-confidence was not moved in the meeting. There were no proposers and seconders to the subjects. The resolution without proposer and seconder was in violation of the Village Panchayats Meetings Rules 1959 (Rules 1959 for short), particularly Rules 17 and 23. All these points were raised in the appeal filed before the Collector, Jalna. The Collector, Jalna, has merely recorded the points of objection but did not discuss them in the concluding part of his order. The order of the Collector, Jalna, was mechanical and without application of mind. No opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners in the meeting.
4. To bolster his arguments, he relied on the cases of:
(ii) Aarti Santosh Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 14612 of 2021 decided on 18th October 2023
(iii) Jaenendrakumar Phoolchand Daftari vs. Rajendra Ramsukh Mishra and Others, 1994 (1) Mh. L.J. 100
(iv) Viswas vs. Group Gram Panchayat Shihu (2013) Mh. L.J. 500
(v) Uddhav Poma Aade vs. Additional Commissioner of Aurangabad and Others, 2018 (3) Mh. L.J. 529
(vi) Manoj Ghanshyamdas Banode vs. Presiding Officer/Tahsildar Dhamangaon and Others, 2019 SCC Online Bom. 85: (2019) 2 Bom. C.R. 249
(vii) Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale vs. Navnath Tukaram Kakde and Others
(viii) Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary v. Gujarat Co-operativer Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. and Others, 2015 (8) SCC 1
(ix) Kishor Ramchandra Phalak vs. Vilas Damordhar Mahajan and Others, 1997 Mh. L.J. 27
(x) Nagorao Sambhaji Dange vs. Rudra Ramkisan Warkad and Others in Writ Petition No. 4863 of 2018 decided on 5th February 2020
(xi) Ganesh Sukhdeo Gurule vs. Tahsildar Sinnar and Others, 2019 (5
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, a....
The interpretation of procedural rules and legal provisions governing the conduct of a no-confidence motion in a Village Panchayat.
The failure to furnish a copy of the requisition for a no-confidence motion does not invalidate the motion if it is adopted by the requisite majority, as the requirement is directory, not mandatory.
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....
The court held that a no confidence motion passed during a meeting convened without proper notice is invalid and nullifies the decision taken.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
