Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Bom) 623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
Priyanka Abhijeet Deodhare - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 13110 OF 2024
Decided On : 28-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Drupad S. Patil, a/w Mr. Namikumar Pansare for the Petitioner.
Mr. J.P. Patil, AGP for Respondent/State Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. P.G. Chavan, a/w Mr. Someshawar K. Pawale i/b Mr. Sachin Padaye, for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 & 9 to 11.

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.

Headnote:
(A) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Section 35(3B) - No Confidence Motion Rules, 1975 - Validity of no-confidence motion against Sarpanch - Failure to furnish requisition copy does not vitiate motion - Petitioner challenged removal from office after motion adopted by majority - Court held that service of requisition is directory, not mandatory, and does not invalidate motion if majority is present. (Paras 1, 6, 21, 32)

(B) Legal Principles - A motion of no confidence is an expression of lack of confidence, not a disciplinary action - The requirement of notice under Rule 2(2) is directory, ensuring fair opportunity but not invalidating the motion if not followed. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, Sarpanch of Village Kaddhe, challenged her removal following a no-confidence motion adopted by a majority of 7:2 in a Panchayat meeting. The motion was contested on grounds of non-service of requisition copy.

Findings of Court:
The motion of no-confidence was validly adopted despite the non-furnishing of the requisition copy, as the Petitioner was aware of the meeting and participated.

Issues: Whether the failure to furnish a copy of the requisition invalidates the no-confidence motion.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the requirement to furnish a copy of the requisition is directory and does not invalidate a motion of no-confidence passed by a majority.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. The issue that arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether failure to furnish copy of requisition sent by 1/3^rd Members of Panchayat to Tehsildar proposing a motion of no confidence against a Sarparch, who is served with Tehsildar’s notice convening the special meeting, would ipso facto vitiate the motion of no-confidence.

2. Petitioner, who is Sarpanch of Village Kaddhe, Taluka Khed, District Pune, has filed this Petition challenging the Order dated 27 August 2024 passed by the Collector, Pune rejecting Dispute Application No. 10 of 2024 filed by her under provisions of Section 35(3B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (Village Panchayats Act) in respect of no-confidence motion adopted against her in the meeting of Panchayat held on 8 January 2024.

3. Elections to the Gram Panchayat Kaddhe, Taluka Khed, District Pune were held on 15 January 2021. In the meeting of the Panchayat, Petitioner was initially elected as Member of the Panchayat and later she was elected as Sarpanch. Seven members of the Gram Panchayat submitted notice dated 1 January 2024 to Tahsildar, Taluka Junnar, District Pune for moving motion of no confidence against Sarpanch. Tahsildar accordingly convened meeting of Gram Panchayat on 8 January 2024 for presenting motion of no-confidence. Petitioner was apparently served notice prepared by Tahsildar on 1 January 2024 intimating the date and time of meeting scheduled to be held on 8 January 2024. It is Petitioner’s case that the requisition submitted by 7 members for adoption of notice of no-confidence was not served on her.

4. On 8 January 2024, meeting of the Panchayat was held and motion for no-confidence against the Petitioner was adopted by majority of 7:2. Petitioner was accordingly removed from the position of Sarpanch of the Panchayat. Petitioner challenged her removal and no-confidence motion by filing Dispute before the Collector under provisions of Section 35(3B) of the Village Panchayat Act. By order dated 27 August 2024, the Collector has confirmed the motion of no-confidence by rejecting the Dispute preferred by the Petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 27 August 2024 passed by the Collector and has accordingly filed the present Petition.

5. Initially Petitioner questioned eligibility of Respondent Nos. 5, 7 and 9 to participate in the meeting and vote on the ground that they are disqualified under Section 10-1A of the Village Panchayat Act on account of failure to submit Caste Validity Certificate. This Court was therefore persuaded to pass ad-interim relief staying the effect of motion of no-confidence dated 8 January 2024 vide order dated 10 October 2024. However, upon filing of Affidavit-in-Reply by State Government as well as by Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 clarifying the position with regard to submission of caste validity certificates by the respective members, the Petitioner has given up the point of absence of requisite majority for adopting the motion of no-confidence as recorded by this Court in order dated 24 January 2025. The Petition is thus pressed only qua the point of non-service of requisite notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules 1975 (No Confidence Motion Rules).

6. Mr. Drupad Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that under provisions of Rule 2(2) of the No Confidence Motion Rules, the Tahsildar is required to send one copy of notice of no-confidence to Sarpanch. That in the present case, what is served on the Petitioner is only notice prepared by Tahsildar intimating the date of holding of meeting for discussing motion of no-confidence and that the requisition dated 1 January 2024 signed by 7 members to the Tahsildar under Rule 2(1) of the No Confidence Motion Rules was never served on the Petitioner. He would submit that service of copy of notice of motion (requisition) for no-confidence on Sarpanch is not an empt