Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.
LALJIBHAI RAMJIBHAI MAKWANA - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DISTRICT SURENDRANAGAR - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8520 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2021
Decided On : 29-09-2021
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 - Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 – Section 56 and 56(3) - Scheduled Caste – Election petition - Case of petitioner is that, in election of Gram Panchayat petitioner contested on a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste, and was declared as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat - Term of petitioner would get over in years - Petitioner is affiliated with Bhartiya Janta Party - Total strength of Gram Panchayat is 9 members including the Sarpanch - Petitioner states that six members of Gram Panchayat moved a motion of No Confidence against petitioner and in turn, Taluka Development Officer forwarded a communication intimating petitioner and other members of Gram Panchayat that meeting of Gram Panchayat is convened for the purpose of considering motion of No Confidence against petitioner - Whether to exercise his right to speak and raise objection against motion, or otherwise to participate in proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
From the aforesaid overall consideration of all material on record and in view of the decisions which have been placed on record by the learned advocate appearing for respective sides, this Court is of opinion that when No Confidence Motion has been passed with regular procedure as contemplated under Act and passed as per requirement of law in which petitioner participated throughout, resolution passed against petitioner cannot be said to be illegal or invalid in any case - In light of the aforesaid peculiar background on facts, cases which have been cited by learned advocate for petitioner, having gone through in its entirety keeping in view latest pronouncements of the Division Bench of this Court, Court is not inclined to consider case of petitioner.
Result: Civil Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.
2. By way of the present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is made to the resolution dated 05.05.2021 passed in the meeting of Gram Panchayat, Sejakpur, whereby No Confidence Motion is passed against the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner is that, in election of Gram Panchayat, Sejakpur, held in December, 2016, the petitioner contested on a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste, and was declared as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. The term of the petitioner would get over in the year 2021. The petitioner is affiliated with the Bhartiya Janta Party. The total strength of the Gram Panchayat is 9 members including the Sarpanch.
4. The petitioner states that six members of the Gram Panchayat moved a motion of No Confidence against the petitioner on 26.08.2019, and in turn, the Taluka Development Officer forwarded a communication on 16.09.2019 intimating the petitioner and other members of the Gram Panchayat that meeting of the Gram Panchayat is convened on 20.09.2019 for the purpose of considering motion of No Confidence against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the said No Confidence Motion was moved and came to be passed precisely on the circumstances that members of the Gram Panchayat were not satisfied with the working of the petitioner as a Sarpanch, though several welfare works were done by the petitioner in village Sejakpur. The members without appreciating such work of the petitioner were pleased to pass a No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. Not only that there was no issue related to the construction of concrete cement road from Dalitvaas towards the eastern gate of village Sejakpur, But according to the petitioner, one Jayshreeben Dineshkumar Patel wanted a land ad-measuring 300 sq. mtrs. for constructing a stable. It was discussed in the meeting on 2nd July, 2019 of the Gram Panchayat, wherein seven members agreed to grant the said piece of land to Jayshreeben Dineshkumar Patel and passed resolution No. 4 in which the petitioner voted against granting of the said piece of land.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that No Confidence Motion was moved against the petitioner, by an application on 30.08.2019 to the Deputy Collector and Prant Officer, Limbdi stating that since the petitioner hails from the Scheduled Caste community and has contested the election on the said reserved seat and was elected by majority of the members as a Sarpanch. Certain members were not favouring. It has been further pointed out that right from the year 1960 till the election of the petitioner, after almost a period of 70 years, the seat came to be reserved for Scheduled Caste. The members of the Panchayat belonging to the General Caste, have not taken the election and posting of the petitioner as a Sarpanch in a right spirit, and from day one, under one pretext or other, many attempts were made to see that somehow the petitioner can be placed into embarrassment. By way of intimation of Deputy Collector, the details regarding every circumstances was explained by the petitioner, but somehow, the members of the Panchayat have passed No Confidence Motion. According to the petitioner, one Mr. Kalubhai Bhimabhai, Up-Sarpanch had pressurized the petitioner so as to see that one Mr. Govindbhai Kanjibhai Patel gets the land for the purpose of construction of a stable. This tactics of pressure applied by various members were not attained any fruitful result. The petitioner was tried to be made scapegoat and as such by raising multiple contentions, the petitioner constrained to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned action of No Confidence against the petitioner. The case is also tried to be put up that while carrying out such process against the petitioner, relevant statutory provisions which are prescribed under the provision of the Gujarat Panchay
No Confidence Motion has been passed with regular procedure as contemplated under the Act and passed as per the requirement of law in which the petitioner participated throughout, the resolution pass....
Right to speak is inherent as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 56 and it would also be the choice or discretion of such person to exercise his right to speak and object to the Motion of No Conf....
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.
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....
If Sarapnach fails to call such meeting, the Secretary of the panchayat shall forthwith make a report thereof the competent authority and thereupon the competent authority shall call a meeting of the....
The requirement of Rule 17 in proposing and seconding the motion cannot impinge upon the validity of the motion of no confidence, which has otherwise been passed by fulfilling the requirements of Sec....
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.
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
