The immunity from no confidence motions under the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act applies to the post of Sarpanch, not the individual, allowing motions against subsequent Sarpanchs within the stipulated time frame.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. MEHARE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner/Sarpanch has impugned the notice dated 11.12.2024 of respondent no. 2 convening the meeting of no confidence motion under Section 35 sub-section (2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (for short ‘Panchayats Act’).

3. The petitioner was elected from the OBC (Woman) Category as the member of the Village Panchayat in the general elections held on 15.01.2022. She was elected as Sarpanch on 19.07.2023. Before her, respondent no. 4 was the Sarpanch. While removing respondent no. 4 as a Sarpanch, the petitioner was also the member inviting the meeting of no confidence. On 11.12.2024, respondent nos.3 to 10 moved a representation to respondent no. 2/Tahsildar for convening the meeting of no confidence against the petitioner. The petitioner has mainly impugned the notice of respondent no. 2 on the ground that since she has not completed her tenure of two years from the date of her election, no such motion of no confidence shall be moved. Therefore, the impugned notice of respondent no. 2 is illegal, incorrect and against the provisions of law.

4. Respondent no. 2 filed an affidavit in reply. He submitted that he solicited the guidance from the District Collector to deal with such issue before him. Respondent no. 1 guided him that the no confidence as such can be initiated against the petitioner i.e. Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch, if any, within two years from the date of election and within six months preceding the date of expiry of the term of the Village Panchayat. On the basis of the guidance solicited to him by his authority, he came with a case that the impugned notice dated 11.12.2024 is prima facie void.

5. Contesting respondent nos. 3 to 11 are the parties interested in the no confidence against the petitioner. They have appeared before the Court. Their learned counsel has vehemently argued that immunity as provided under 4th proviso to Section 35 of the Panchayats Act could not be available to the petitioner as she is not the Sarpanch elected first in time. He has vehemently argued that the immunity is to the post and not to the person. The earlier Sarpanch held the post for more than two years and then no confidence was brought against him. Interpreting the 4th proviso, he would further submit that the period of two years should be counted from the date of election of Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch. The first Sarpanch was elected long back. Therefore, the no confidence motion is legally correct and the meeting should be convened. To Bolster his arguments, he relied on the case of Charushila Bira Shriram Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 9981 of 2024 of the Bombay High Court decided on January 3, 2025.

6. To counter the interpretation of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no such discrimination could be done with the petitioner being the second Sarpanch elected by the Village Panchayat members. The proviso is unambiguous. The immunity is not given to the post but it is given to the person. Two years are to be counted from the date of election of the Sarpanch and not the post. The period of two years is yet to over. Their no confidence motion is illegal. To bolster his arguments, he would rely on the judgment of this Bench in the case of Mukesh Eknath Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 10447 of 2021 dated 05.10.2021. He would submit that the interpretation of the Single Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Charushila (supra) is contrary to the object of the proviso. There is some purpose behind such proviso. Since the immunity of two years has been granted, the immunity granting to the post of motion of no confidence as such could not be entertained. The authority empowered to convey the meeting has expressed the opinion in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, respondent nos.3 to 10 have no voice to say so. He prayed to