The failure to furnish a copy of the requisition to the Sarpanch under Rule 2(2) of the No Confidence Motion Rules does not invalidate a no-confidence motion passed by a valid majority. 

The provisions of Rule 2(2) are directory, and the motion of no-confidence is not akin to disciplinary proceedings, which require strict compliance with procedural safeguards. (Para 22, 23) The Court emphasized that a no-confidence motion is an expression of the collective will of the members of the Panchayat and does not require the same level of procedural formality as disciplinary actions. (Para 21, 22)

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the failure to furnish a copy of the requisition to the Sarpanch does not vitiate the no-confidence motion.

The Court relied on the judgment in Yamunabai Laxman Chavan, which held that the provisions of Rule 2(2) are directory and not mandatory. (Para 22, 23) The Court distinguished the judgment in Arjun Sambhaji Khade, clarifying that it did not hold that the failure to furnish a copy of the requisition would invalidate the motion. (Para 25, 26) The Court also rejected the Petitioner’s reliance on Digambar Virbhadra Yesge & Anr. Vs. Additional Collector and Ors., as it dealt with the non-service of the notice of the meeting, not the requisition. (Para 27, 28)

Major Acts:

• Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (Village Panchayats Act) – Section 35 – Motion of No Confidence – Rules 2(1) and 2(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 (No Confidence Motion Rules).

Facts:

• The Petitioner, Priyanka Abhijeet Deodhare, was the Sarpanch of Village Kaddhe, Taluka Khed, District Pune.

• A no-confidence motion was moved against her by seven members of the Gram Panchayat, and a special meeting was convened on 8 January 2024, where the motion was passed by a majority of 7:2.

• The Petitioner challenged the motion, arguing that she was not served with a copy of the requisition signed by the seven members, which is required under Rule 2(2) of the No Confidence Motion Rules.

• The Collector dismissed her dispute application, and she filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court.

Issues:

• Whether the failure to furnish a copy of the requisition sent by 1/3rd members of the Panchayat to the Tahsildar proposing a motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch would vitiate the motion of no-confidence? (Para 1, 13)

Submissions/Arguments:

• Petitioner’s Arguments:

  • The Petitioner contended that the failure to serve her with a copy of the requisition signed by the seven members violated Rule 2(2) of the No Confidence Motion Rules, which is mandatory.

  • She argued that the purpose of serving the requisition is to allow the Sarpanch to respond to the allegations, and mere service of the notice of the meeting is insufficient. (Para 6, 19)

  • Reliance was placed on several judgments, including Indubai Vedu Khairnar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Ashabai Ashok Shinde Vs. Additional Commissioner, and Arjun Sambhaji Khade Vs. Mangal Ankush Kharmate, to argue that the provisions of Rule 2(2) are mandatory. (Para 7, 24)

• Respondents’ Arguments:

  • The Respondents argued that the Petitioner was duly served with the notice of the meeting and participated in it, thus having the opportunity to defend herself.

  • They contended that the failure to furnish the requisition copy was a technical lapse by the Tahsildar and should not invalidate the motion, especially since it was passed by a valid majority. (Para 10, 20)

  • Reliance was placed on Yamunabai Laxman Chavan & Ors. Vs. Sarubai Tukaram Jadhav & Ors., where it was held that non-furnishing of the requisition copy does not invalidate the motion. (Para 21)

Subjects:

• No-confidence motion – Sarpanch – Requisition – Rule 2(2) – Directory provisions – Mandatory provisions – Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 – Yamunabai Laxman Chavan – Arjun Sambhaji Khade.