IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a No-Confidence motion can be validly passed even if the Sarpanch is absent, provided proper notice is given and the right to speak is upheld.

JUDGMENT :

(Gauri Godse, J.) :

1. This petition is filed by the Sarpanch of Mhasrang Gram Panchayat to challenge the order of approval of the No-Confidence motion passed against her.

FACTS IN BRIEF:

2. The petitioner and respondent nos. 4 to 10 were elected as members of the Mhasrang Gram Panchayat on 18th January 2021. The petitioner got elected as Sarpanch from amongst the members on 26th February 2021. It is the case of the members of the Gram Panchayat that the petitioner has remained absent from all the meetings since October 2022. The petitioner had filed an application seeking leave of absence from 23rd December 2022 to 6th January 2023 on account of the ill health of her son, who was receiving treatment in Mumbai. The petitioner’s leave of absence was approved by the Gram Panchayat on 26th December 2022. The petitioner filed another leave application on 24th February 2023, seeking leave of absence on similar grounds from 24th February 2023 to 20th March 2023.

3. Respondent nos. 4 to 10 contended that: (i) the petitioner’s application for leave of absence from 24th February 2023 to 20th March 2023 was rejected in the meeting held on 25th February 2023, (ii) a requisition for passing a No-Confidence motion against the petitioner was moved by them on 27th February 2023 before the learned Tahsildar, (iii) notice under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (“the said Act”) was served upon the petitioner by the learned Tahsildar intimating her that the meeting for deciding requisition for No-Confidence motion would be held on 3rd March 2023 at 2.00 pm, (iv) on 3rd March 2023, the petitioner filed her written submission through her father-in-law in the meeting convened for deciding requisition for No-Confidence motion, (v) the learned Tahsildar conducted the meeting on 3rd March 2023 and No- Confidence motion was passed unanimously by seven out of nine members present in the meeting.

4. Aggrieved by the No-Confidence Motion passed by the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 16 of the said Act. By the impugned order dated 18th September 2023, the learned Collector dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. Hence, the present petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER :

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 24th February 2023, the petitioner had already submitted her application for leave of absence from 24th February 2023 to 20th March 2023. The said application was illegally rejected on 25th February 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that knowing fully well that the petitioner was absent due to the ill health of her son, who was undergoing treatment for a bone marrow transplant at Wadia Hospital, Mumbai, the members of the Gram Panchayat with malafide intention moved the requisition for No- Confidence motion against the petitioner. The application for leave of absence dated 25th February 2023 was rejected on the same day, and an immediate requisition notice was issued on 27th February 2023.

6. It is the petitioner’s case that though the notice of the meeting for deciding requisition for No-Confidence motion was served upon the petitioner, the requisition submitted by the members of the Gram Panchayat was not served upon her. By referring to copies of the minutes of the meeting submitted before this Court by the learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 10, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the minutes had been shown to be signed by the Sarpanch, i.e. the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the minutes of the meeting recorded by the Gram Panchayat are suspicious. Learned counsel submitted that when the petitioner was not present from 24th February 2023 to 20th March 2023, there was no question of the petitioner signing the minutes of the meeting rejecting the petitioner’s application for leave of absence.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of Rule 2(2-B) of the Bombay Village