Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nirmala w/o Pandharinath Sarde (Shiralkar), was the Sarpanch of Shirala Village Panchayat. She was removed from the post by a no-confidence motion passed on 22 December 2023 in an extraordinary meeting convened on the notice of members. Aggrieved, she filed an application before the District Collector, which was rejected. She then approached the Bombay High Court. The petitioner challenged the no-confidence motion on several grounds: (1) the resolution was not moved for voting; (2) she was not given at least three days' notice of the meeting; (3) Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959 was not followed; (4) the motion was not proposed or convened as per Rule 18. The court heard the matter at the admission stage with consent of parties. The court noted that the petitioner was not given three clear days' notice before the meeting, which is mandatory under Rule 17. The court also observed that the motion was not moved for voting. Relying on the mandatory nature of the notice requirement, the court held that the no-confidence motion was invalid. The court quashed the resolution dated 22 December 2023 and the order of the District Collector dated 29 January 2024. The petitioner was restored to the post of Sarpanch. The court directed that the petitioner be allowed to function as Sarpanch and that the respondents may initiate fresh proceedings if they so desire, in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - No-Confidence Motion - Mandatory Notice - Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959 - The court considered whether the no-confidence motion removing the Sarpanch was valid when the petitioner was not given at least three days' notice of the meeting. The court held that Rule 17 is mandatory and failure to provide such notice vitiates the motion. (Paras 7-9) B) Panchayat Law - No-Confidence Motion - Procedure - Rule 18 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959 - The court examined whether the motion was proposed and convened as per Rule 18. The court found that the motion was not moved for voting and the procedure was not followed, rendering the resolution invalid. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the no-confidence motion removing the petitioner as Sarpanch was valid when the mandatory three-day notice under Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959 was not given to the petitioner.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition. The resolution of no-confidence dated 22.12.2023 and the order of the District Collector dated 29.01.2024 were quashed and set aside. The petitioner was restored to the post of Sarpanch. The respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to function as Sarpanch. The respondents were at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Mandatory notice period
- No-confidence motion
- Sarpanch removal
- Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules
- 1959
- Rule 17
- Rule 18
- Natural justice
