Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Yogini w/o Sanjay Deshmukh, was the elected Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Mandawa. A no-confidence motion was initiated against her, and the Tahsildar convened a meeting on 09.01.2024, where a resolution was passed by 8 out of 9 members against her. The petitioner approached the District Collector under Section 35(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, challenging the motion on three grounds: (1) three members were disqualified for not submitting caste validity certificates within one year as required under Sections 10-1A and 30-1A; (2) one member, Arun Rambhau Shinde, submitted his certificate after one year and thus could not propose the no-confidence motion; and (3) the Tahsildar did not give her a right to speak in the meeting. The District Collector dismissed her appeal. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The court examined the provisions and found that the issue of disqualification had not been decided by the competent authority, and the members continued to be members. Moreover, the Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate Act, 2021 extended the period for submission, protecting the members. Regarding the right to speak, the court held that no such right exists under the Act for a Sarpanch in a no-confidence meeting. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the no-confidence motion.
Headnote
A) Panchayati Raj - No-Confidence Motion - Disqualification of Members - Sections 10-1A, 30-1A, 35(3)(b) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - The petitioner challenged the no-confidence motion on the ground that three members were disqualified for failing to submit caste validity certificates within one year. The court held that the issue of disqualification was not decided by the competent authority under Section 10-1A and 30-1A, and the members continued to be members until a declaration of disqualification. The no-confidence motion was validly passed by 8 out of 9 members. (Paras 5-7)
B) Panchayati Raj - No-Confidence Motion - Right to Speak - Section 35 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - The petitioner argued that she was not given a right to speak in the no-confidence meeting. The court held that the statutory provisions do not confer a right to speak on the Sarpanch in a no-confidence meeting. The meeting was conducted as per law. (Para 8)
C) Panchayati Raj - Caste Validity Certificate - Temporary Extension - Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2021 - The court noted that the period for submitting caste validity certificates was extended by the said Act, and the members who submitted certificates after one year were protected by the extension. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the no-confidence motion against the petitioner Sarpanch was illegal and invalid due to alleged disqualification of three members for non-submission of caste validity certificates, and whether the petitioner had a right to speak in the no-confidence meeting.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The no-confidence motion and resolution against the petitioner are upheld.
Law Points
- No-confidence motion
- Sarpanch
- Caste validity certificate
- Disqualification
- Right to speak
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- 1958
- Section 35(3)(b)
- Section 10-1A
- Section 30-1A
- Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate Act
- 2021
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (03) 15
Writ Petition No.2954 of 2024
Mr. D. J. Ghodke h/f Mr. Amol Jagtap for Petitioner, Mrs. M. L. Sangit AGP for Respondents-State, Mr. Sujit A. Patil for Respondent Nos.4 to 11
Yogini w/o Sanjay Deshmukh
The State of Maharashtra through District Collector, Osmanabad and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the no-confidence motion against the petitioner Sarpanch.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the no-confidence motion and resolution passed against her.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that three members were disqualified for not submitting caste validity certificates, one member submitted certificate late, and she was not given a right to speak in the meeting.
Previous Decisions
The District Collector dismissed the petitioner's appeal under Section 35(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
Issues
Whether the no-confidence motion against the petitioner was illegal due to alleged disqualification of three members for non-submission of caste validity certificates?
Whether the petitioner had a right to speak in the no-confidence meeting?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that three members violated Section 10-1A and 30-1A by not submitting caste validity certificates within one year, and thus were disqualified.
Petitioner argued that member Arun Rambhau Shinde submitted his certificate after one year and could not propose the no-confidence motion.
Petitioner argued that the Tahsildar did not give her a right to speak in the meeting.
Respondents argued that the issue of disqualification was not decided by the competent authority, and the members continued to be members. The period for submission was extended by the Maharashtra Temporary Extension Act, 2021. No right to speak exists for Sarpanch in no-confidence meeting.
Ratio Decidendi
The issue of disqualification of members under Sections 10-1A and 30-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 must be decided by the competent authority; until then, members continue to be members. The Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate Act, 2021 extended the period for submission. The Sarpanch has no right to speak in a no-confidence meeting under the Act.
Judgment Excerpts
The issue of disqualification of the members under Section 10-1A and 30-1A of the Village Panchayats Act has not been decided by the competent authority. Therefore, the members continued to be the members of the Village Panchayat.
The period for submitting the caste validity certificate was extended by the Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2021.
The statutory provisions do not confer a right to speak on the Sarpanch in a no-confidence meeting.
Procedural History
The petitioner was elected Sarpanch. A no-confidence motion was initiated, and the Tahsildar convened a meeting on 09.01.2024 where a resolution was passed by 8/9 members against the petitioner. The petitioner appealed to the District Collector under Section 35(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, which was dismissed. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958: Section 10-1A, Section 30-1A, Section 35(3)(b)
- Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate (for certain elections to Village Panchayats, Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis) Act, 2021:
