Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nirmala w/o Pandharinath Sarde (Shiralkar), was the Sarpanch of Shirala Village Panchayat. On 22.12.2023, an extraordinary meeting was convened on the notice of members of the Village Panchayat to pass a no-confidence motion against her. The motion was passed, and she was removed from the post of Sarpanch. Aggrieved, she filed an application before the District Collector, who rejected her petition. She then approached the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad by way of a writ petition. The petitioner challenged the no-confidence motion on several grounds, primarily that the resolution was not moved for voting, that she was not given at least three days' notice as required by Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959, and that the motion was not proposed or convened as per Rule 18 of the said Rules. The court examined the provisions of Rules 17 and 18. Rule 17 requires that a meeting for no-confidence must be convened by giving at least three clear days' notice to the Sarpanch. Rule 18 requires that the motion be moved for voting. The court found that the petitioner was not given the mandatory three-day notice, and the motion was not actually moved for voting. The court held that the requirements of Rules 17 and 18 are mandatory and not directory. Non-compliance with these rules renders the no-confidence motion invalid. The court also noted that the District Collector had erred in rejecting the petitioner's application. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the no-confidence motion passed on 22.12.2023, and restored the petitioner to the post of Sarpanch. The court directed that the petitioner be allowed to function as Sarpanch and that all consequential benefits be restored.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - No-confidence Motion - Mandatory Notice - Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959 - The court held that the requirement of giving at least three days' notice to the Sarpanch before the no-confidence meeting is mandatory and not directory. Failure to provide such notice renders the meeting and the resolution invalid. (Paras 7-9) B) Panchayat Law - No-confidence Motion - Procedure - Rule 18 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959 - The court held that the motion of no-confidence must be moved for voting in the meeting. If the motion is not actually moved for voting, the resolution is invalid. (Para 10) C) Panchayat Law - No-confidence Motion - Compliance with Rules - The court held that strict compliance with the procedural rules is essential for the validity of a no-confidence motion. Any deviation from the mandatory provisions vitiates the proceedings. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the no-confidence motion removing the petitioner as Sarpanch was validly passed in compliance with the mandatory requirements of Rules 17 and 18 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the no-confidence motion passed on 22.12.2023, and restored the petitioner to the post of Sarpanch with all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Mandatory notice period
- No-confidence motion
- Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules
- 1959
- Rule 17
- Rule 18
- Natural justice
