Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
Priyanka Abhijeet Deodhare – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The issue that arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether failure to furnish copy of requisition sent by 1/3rd 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
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 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 court affirmed that compliance with statutory notice provisions in a no confidence motion was sufficient, and challenges based on alleged deficiencies or political motives were unsubstantiated.
Procedural safeguards under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act are mandatory for no-confidence motions; late notice receipt does not invalidate proceedings absent demonstrable prejudice.
The court ruled that compliance with procedural safeguards under the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 is critical for no-confidence motions, affirming that minor deviations do not invalidate democrati....
The mandatory and directory requirements of the notice under Section 24(2)(c) of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 must be fulfilled for the validity of a No Confidence Motion meeting.
Compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act is crucial, but minor deviations that do not demonstrate prejudice may not invalidate no-confidence proceedings....
The court ruled that proper notice for a no-confidence motion was served, and the Collector's decision to set it aside was erroneous, affirming the motion's validity.
A no-confidence motion against a municipal Vice-Chairperson is valid without the necessity of specific reasons in the resolution, and adherence to statutory notice requirements fulfills procedural ju....
Compliance with procedural laws in no-confidence motions under the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act is essential, though timing of notice receipt versus issuance holds significance in evaluating valid par....
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
