IMPORTANT POINT
A Sarpanch removed by a motion of no-confidence is not statutorily barred from contesting a by-election for the same post under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is when the post of Sarpanch is reserved for a particular category of members and the Sarpanch elected as such is the only member belonging to that particular category, on removal of such Sarpanch due to passing of a motion of no-confidence under Sec. 35(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (for short, the Act of 1959), whether he/she can again contest the by-election that is held for filling in the vacancy caused due to his/her removal ?

2. The respondent No.6 was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Wathoda, Taluka Warud, District Amravati. The post of Sarpanch was reserved for Scheduled Caste (Women). By a motion of no-confidence moved by the petitioners along with other members of the Gram Panchayat, the respondent No.6 came to be removed from the post of Sarpanch since the said motion came to be passed by the requisite majority. Since a vacancy had arisen on the post of Sarpanch that was reserved for members belonging to Scheduled Caste (Women) category and the respondent No.6 was the only eligible member who could contest the said election, the petitioners have challenged the notice dtd. 30/06/2023 convening the meeting of the Gram Panchayat for electing the Sarpanch by holding a by-election.

3. Shri S. V. Bhutada, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to various provisions of the Act of 1959 including Sec. 43(1) thereof submits that any vacancy of which notice has been given to the Collector on account of occurring of various contingencies including confirmation of no-confidence motion is required to be filled in by conducting election. The person who is elected in such election can hold office only for such period as Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch "in whose place he has been elected" would have held office if the vacancy had not arisen. Thus, according to the learned counsel the words "in whose place he has been elected" would exclude the Sarpanch against whom the no-confidence motion has been confirmed. By permitting such member who has been removed by a motion of no-confidence to again contest the by-election for filling in the same post would be against democratic principles and passing of the motion of noconfidence would be rendered otiose. Under Sec. 35(2) (a) on such motion of no-confidence being carried by the requisite majority the Sarpanch is required to forthwith stop exercising powers and performing of functions and duties of the office of Sarpanch. This would imply that a Sarpanch removed by a motion of no-confidence is not expected to again contest the by-election for the office of Sarpanch. The learned counsel sought to draw support for this submission by referring to the judgment of the Full Bench in Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale vs. Navnath Tukaram Kakde and ors. (2014) 6 Mh.L.J. 804. He fairly pointed out that the Division Bench in Chandarbai w/o Malhari Gaikwad and anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 1998 (2) Mh.L.J. 724 has held that there was no bar for such Sarpanch who was removed through a motion of no-confidence to contest again and get reelected. The respondent No.6 had been removed by the members of the Gram Panchayat since she did not have the confidence of majority of the members. Hence it was not permissible for respondent No.6 to again contest the by-election. It was thus submitted that it be held that the respondent no.6 was not eligible to contest the by-election for electing the Sarpanch.

4. Shri Nilesh Gavande, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 opposed the writ petition. According to him, in absence of there being any disqualification prescribed for a Sarpanch who has been removed by virtue of motion of no-confidence being passed to again contest the by-election, the respondent no.6 was entitled to submit her nomination form and contest the said elections. The disqualifications prescribed under Sec. 14 of the Act of 1959 did not include a disqualification by virtue of which a S