Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Priyanka Abhijeet Deodhare, was the Sarpanch of Village Kaddhe, Taluka Khed, District Pune. Elections to the Gram Panchayat were held on 15 January 2021, and she was elected Sarpanch. On 1 January 2024, seven members of the Panchayat submitted a notice to the Tahsildar proposing a no-confidence motion against her. The Tahsildar convened a special meeting on 8 January 2024 and served a notice of the meeting on the Petitioner. However, the copy of the requisition (the notice of motion signed by the seven members) was not served on her. The meeting was held on 8 January 2024, and the no-confidence motion was adopted by a majority of 7:2, resulting in her removal. The Petitioner challenged the motion before the Collector under Section 35(3B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, but the Collector rejected her dispute on 27 August 2024. She then filed the present Writ Petition. Initially, she also challenged the eligibility of some members on grounds of disqualification for non-submission of caste validity certificates, but that ground was given up after the respondents clarified that the certificates had been submitted. The sole surviving issue was whether non-service of the copy of the requisition under Rule 2(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 vitiated the no-confidence motion. The Petitioner argued that the provision is mandatory and that service of the requisition is essential to enable the Sarpanch to know the reasons and prepare a defence. The Respondents contended that the Petitioner had notice of the meeting, participated, and was aware of the reasons, so no prejudice was caused. The Court examined various precedents, including Indubai Vedu Khairnar, Ashabai Ashok Shinde, and Yamunabai Laxman Chavan, and held that Rule 2(2) is directory in nature. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the rule is to ensure the Sarpanch is informed of the motion, which was achieved through the Tehsildar's notice. Since the Petitioner participated in the meeting and had an opportunity to defend, the non-service of the requisition copy did not vitiate the motion. The Court dismissed the Petition, upholding the Collector's order and the validity of the no-confidence motion.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - No-Confidence Motion - Service of Requisition - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, Section 35(3B) and Maharashtra Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, Rule 2(2) - The issue was whether non-furnishing of a copy of the requisition (notice of motion) to the Sarpanch, despite service of the Tehsildar's notice convening the meeting, renders the no-confidence motion void. The Court held that Rule 2(2) is directory, not mandatory, and non-service of the requisition copy does not ipso facto vitiate the motion if the Sarpanch had notice of the meeting and opportunity to defend. (Paras 1, 12-20) B) Panchayat Law - No-Confidence Motion - Directory vs Mandatory - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, Rule 2(2) - The Court analyzed precedents and concluded that the provision for furnishing a copy of the requisition to the Sarpanch is directory, as the purpose is to ensure the Sarpanch is aware of the motion, which can be achieved through the Tehsildar's notice. Non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the motion unless prejudice is shown. (Paras 12-20) C) Panchayat Law - No-Confidence Motion - Prejudice - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, Section 35(3B) - The Court held that the Sarpanch participated in the meeting and was aware of the reasons for the motion, thus no prejudice was caused. The motion was validly adopted by majority. (Paras 10, 21-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether failure to furnish copy of requisition sent by 1/3rd members of Panchayat to Tehsildar proposing a motion of no-confidence against a Sarpanch, who is served with Tehsildar's notice convening the special meeting, would ipso facto vitiate the motion of no-confidence.
Final Decision
The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the no-confidence motion was validly adopted and the Collector's order was correct. The Court ruled that Rule 2(2) of the No Confidence Motion Rules is directory, and non-service of the requisition copy does not ipso facto vitiate the motion when the Sarpanch had notice of the meeting and opportunity to defend.
Law Points
- No-confidence motion
- Sarpanch
- Service of requisition
- Directory provision
- Mandatory provision
- Rule 2(2) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules 1975
- Section 35(3B) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959
