Bombay High Court Allows Sarpanch's Writ Petition Challenging No-Confidence Motion in Maharashtra Panchayat Raj Act Case — Motion Invalid Due to Non-Compliance with Section 9A(2) Notice Requirements. The court held that the notice period of seven clear days must exclude the date of service and the date of meeting, and failure to provide such notice renders the no-confidence motion void.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 72
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Dnyaneshwar Shridhar Matkar, was the Sarpanch of Khirdi Village Panchayat. A notice of no-confidence motion was issued against him under Section 9A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. The notice was served on the petitioner on 28.03.2023, and the meeting for the no-confidence motion was scheduled and held on 04.04.2023. The petitioner challenged the validity of the motion on the ground that the notice did not comply with the mandatory requirement of seven clear days as per Section 9A(2) of the Act. The court examined the computation of the notice period. It held that the day of service of notice (28.03.2023) and the date of the meeting (04.04.2023) must be excluded. Counting from 29.03.2023 to 03.04.2023 gives only six days, falling short of the required seven clear days. The court rejected the argument that the notice period should be computed from the date of the notice (27.03.2023) rather than the date of service. The court emphasized that the requirement of seven clear days is mandatory and non-compliance renders the motion invalid. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the no-confidence motion and the meeting, and directed that the petitioner be reinstated as Sarpanch.

Headnote

A) Panchayat Raj - No-Confidence Motion - Notice Period - Section 9A(2) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The notice of no-confidence motion must be given at least seven clear days before the date of the meeting. The day of service of notice and the date of the meeting are to be excluded while computing the period of seven clear days. In the present case, notice was served on 28.03.2023 and meeting was held on 04.04.2023, which does not provide seven clear days. Held that the motion is invalid and the meeting is vitiated (Paras 7-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the no-confidence motion against the petitioner-sarpanch was validly passed in compliance with Section 9A(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, specifically regarding the requirement of seven clear days' notice.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the no-confidence motion and the meeting held on 04.04.2023, and directed that the petitioner be reinstated as Sarpanch of Khirdi Village Panchayat.

Law Points

  • No-confidence motion
  • Gram Panchayat
  • Sarpanch
  • Section 9A Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
  • 1959
  • Notice period
  • Seven clear days
  • Computation of time
  • Exclusion of first day and date of meeting
  • Mandatory requirement
  • Invalid motion
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (05) 11

Writ Petition No.3885 of 2023

2023-05-03

Arun R. Pedneker

Mr. V. D. Salunke h/f Mr. R. V. Gore, Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, Mr. A. R. Kawade, Mr. V. H. Pathade, Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar h/f Mr. A. P. Piratwad

Dnyaneshwar Shridhar Matkar

The State of Maharashtra and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the validity of a no-confidence motion passed against the petitioner, who is the Sarpanch of Khirdi Village Panchayat.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought quashing of the no-confidence motion and the meeting held on 04.04.2023, and reinstatement as Sarpanch.

Filing Reason

The petitioner alleged that the notice of no-confidence motion was not served in compliance with Section 9A(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, as it did not provide seven clear days' notice.

Issues

Whether the no-confidence motion against the petitioner was validly passed in compliance with Section 9A(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, regarding the requirement of seven clear days' notice.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the notice was served on 28.03.2023 and the meeting was held on 04.04.2023, which does not give seven clear days as required by Section 9A(2). Respondents argued that the notice period should be computed from the date of the notice (27.03.2023) and not the date of service, and that seven clear days were provided.

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement of seven clear days' notice under Section 9A(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 is mandatory. The day of service of notice and the date of the meeting must be excluded while computing the period. In this case, notice served on 28.03.2023 and meeting on 04.04.2023 provided only six clear days, rendering the motion invalid.

Judgment Excerpts

The requirement of seven clear days notice is mandatory and the day of service of notice and the date of meeting are to be excluded. In the present case, the notice was served on 28.03.2023 and the meeting was held on 04.04.2023, which does not provide seven clear days.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3885 of 2023 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad challenging the no-confidence motion. The petition was reserved on 02.05.2023 and pronounced on 03.05.2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: Section 9A, Section 9A(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Revokes Heirship Certificate Granted Under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 Due to Suppression of Material Facts and Non-Joinder of Other Legal Heirs. The court held that an heirship certificate obtained by suppressing the existence o...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeals of Reserved Category Government School Students in MBBS GS Quota Case — Directs Admission in Next Academic Session. The Court held that meritorious reserved category candidates cannot be excluded from the Unreserved Gov...