Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Archna Phulare, was the Upa-Sarpanch of Shivgaon-Pathari Gram Panchayat. A no-confidence motion was passed against her by 7 votes to 2 out of nine total elected members. The petitioner challenged the motion on the ground that one of the members who voted against her was disqualified for not submitting a caste validity certificate within one year, and therefore was not entitled to sit and vote. She argued that the Government Ordinance dated 10.07.2023 did not extend the time for members whose application for validity certificate had been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner contended that after eliminating the disqualified member, the required 3/4th majority was not achieved. The legal issue was whether the 3/4th majority for removal of Upa-sarpanch should be calculated based on the total members of the panchayat or only those present and voting. The petitioner argued that it should be based on total members, relying on the Supreme Court case Ganesh Sukhdeo Gurule Vs. Tahsildar, Sinnar and Ors. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the 3/4th majority must be calculated considering the total members of the panchayat. However, the court did not decide the disqualification issue as it was not necessary for the main question. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the no-confidence motion.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - No-Confidence Motion - 3/4th Majority - Calculation - The issue was whether the 3/4th majority required for removal of Upa-sarpanch should be computed on the basis of total members of the panchayat or only those present and voting. The court held that the 3/4th majority must be calculated considering the total members of the panchayat, not merely those who participated in the meeting. (Paras 3, 6)
B) Panchayat Law - Disqualification - Caste Validity Certificate - Government Ordinance dated 10.07.2023 - Section 3(2)(b) - The petitioner argued that a member who voted against her was disqualified for not submitting caste validity certificate within one year, and that the extension under the Ordinance did not apply to members whose application was rejected. The court did not decide this issue as it was not necessary for the main question. (Paras 4, 5)
C) Panchayat Law - Precedent - Ganesh Sukhdeo Gurule Vs. Tahsildar, Sinnar and Ors, 2019(1) ALL MR 471 (S.C.) - The petitioner relied on this Supreme Court case to support the argument that 3/4th majority should be counted based on total members. The court considered this precedent. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether 3/4th majority for a no-confidence motion against the Upa-sarpanch should be calculated considering the total members of the panchayat.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. The court held that the 3/4th majority must be calculated considering the total members of the panchayat, but did not decide the disqualification issue as it was not necessary for the main question.
Law Points
- No-confidence motion
- 3/4th majority
- Upa-sarpanch
- disqualification
- caste validity certificate
- Government Ordinance dated 10.07.2023
- Section 3(2)(b)
- total members of panchayat
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (02) 127
WRIT PETITION NO. 1437 OF 2024
Mr. Gore Ravindra Vitthal, Mr. A.S. Shinde, Mr. Omprakash V. Waghmare, Mr. P.D. Kale
Archna W/o. Vikas Phulare
The District Collector, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar; The Tahsildar, Vaijapur; The Gramsavek, Group Gram Panchayat, Shivgaon-Pathari; Ashok S/o Eknath Borase; Mamata W/o. Shantilal Rajput; Tarabai W/o. Waman Gangurde; Vimalbai W/o. Dagadu Gaikwad; Vijaysingh S/o. Mahasingh Jarwal; Sunita W/o. Venunath Darekar; Swati W/o. Vikas Darekar; Sitabai W/o. Madan Gomladu
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the no-confidence motion passed against the petitioner, who is the Upa-sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the no-confidence motion and the orders of the authorities upholding it.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the no-confidence motion was invalid because one of the members who voted against her was disqualified, and thus the required 3/4th majority was not achieved.
Previous Decisions
The authorities (District Collector and Tahsildar) had upheld the no-confidence motion, interpreting the Government Ordinance dated 10.07.2023 as extending an additional year to submit the caste validity certificate.
Issues
Whether the 3/4th majority for a no-confidence motion against the Upa-sarpanch should be calculated considering the total members of the panchayat.
Whether the member who voted against the petitioner was disqualified for not submitting the caste validity certificate within one year, and whether the Government Ordinance dated 10.07.2023 applied to him.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the authorities misinterpreted the Government Ordinance dated 10.07.2023; the extension of one year under Section 3(2)(b) does not apply to members whose application for validity certificate was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee. The member who voted against her was disqualified, and after eliminating him, there is no 3/4th majority. The 3/4th majority should be counted considering the total nine members of the Village Panchayat. Relied on Ganesh Sukhdeo Gurule Vs. Tahsildar, Sinnar and Ors.
Respondents argued that the no-confidence motion was validly passed by 7:2 out of nine members, and the disqualification issue was not relevant as the motion was passed before any disqualification.
Ratio Decidendi
The 3/4th majority required for removal of Upa-sarpanch must be calculated based on the total members of the panchayat, not merely those present and voting.
Judgment Excerpts
A short question that arises for determination is whether 3/4th majority for a no-confidence motion against the Upa-sarpanch should be calculated considering the total members of the panchayat.
The no-confidence motion has been passed against the petitioner by 7:2 out of nine total elected members.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad challenging the no-confidence motion passed against her. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on February 20, 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Government Ordinance dated 10.07.2023: Section 3, Section 3(2)(b)
