Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Amrapali Sakharam Kamble, was elected as Sarpanch of Mhasrang Gram Panchayat on 26th February 2021. She remained absent from meetings since October 2022, citing her son's illness and treatment in Mumbai. She applied for leave from 24th February 2023 to 20th March 2023, which was rejected by the Gram Panchayat on 25th February 2023. On 27th February 2023, respondent nos. 4 to 10 moved a requisition for a No-Confidence motion against her. The Tahsildar issued a notice under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, for a meeting on 3rd March 2023. The petitioner was served with the notice by affixation, but she claimed that a copy of the requisition was not served. She submitted written submissions through her father-in-law requesting adjournment. The meeting proceeded, and the No-Confidence motion was passed unanimously by seven out of nine members present. The petitioner appealed to the Collector under Section 16 of the Act, but the appeal was dismissed on 18th September 2023. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The court examined whether the non-service of a copy of the requisition vitiated the motion. The court held that Rule 2(2-B) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, requiring supply of a copy of the requisition, is directory and not mandatory. The notice under Section 35 read with Rule 2(2) was sufficient. The petitioner was not deprived of her right to speak as she submitted written submissions. The court also found no merit in the challenge to the rejection of leave or the authenticity of minutes. The petition was dismissed, and the No-Confidence motion was upheld.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - No-Confidence Motion - Service of Requisition - Section 35 Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 read with Rule 2 Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 - The court held that the requirement under Rule 2(2-B) to supply a copy of the requisition is directory and not mandatory, and that the notice under Section 35 read with Rule 2(2) was sufficient compliance. The petitioner was not deprived of her right to speak as she submitted written submissions through her father-in-law. (Paras 13-18) B) Panchayat Law - Leave of Absence - Rejection of Leave - The court noted that the petitioner's leave application was rejected by the Gram Panchayat on 25th February 2023, and the petitioner was informed of the rejection through the notice of the no-confidence meeting. The court found no illegality in the rejection. (Paras 2-3, 19) C) Panchayat Law - Minutes of Meeting - Signatures - The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the minutes were suspicious because they showed her signature, as the minutes pertained to a meeting held on 25th February 2023 when the petitioner was allegedly absent. The court observed that the petitioner did not produce any evidence to contradict the minutes. (Para 20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the No-Confidence motion passed against the petitioner-Sarpanch is vitiated due to non-compliance of Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 read with Rule 2 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, specifically for failure to serve a copy of the requisition along with the notice of meeting.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The No-Confidence motion passed against the petitioner and the order of the Collector are upheld.
Law Points
- No-confidence motion
- Sarpanch
- Leave of absence
- Service of requisition
- Right to speak
- Section 35 Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act
- 1958
- Rule 2 Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules
- 1975
