Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, elected members of Gram Panchayat Chimbli, challenged the election of Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch conducted on 24.02.2021 and a subsequent no-confidence motion. The Presiding Officer, appointed by the Tahsildar, conducted the election by secret ballot after three members demanded it under Rule 10(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964. Petitioner No. 1 was declared Sarpanch with seven votes, and Petitioner No. 4 was elected Deputy Sarpanch. The respondents challenged the election, and a no-confidence motion was passed against the Sarpanch. The court examined the validity of the secret ballot procedure and the no-confidence motion. It held that the Presiding Officer correctly followed Rule 10(2) and the election was valid. Regarding the no-confidence motion, the court found that the notice requirements under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 were not complied with, rendering the motion invalid. The court allowed the petition, setting aside the no-confidence resolution and upholding the election of the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Gram Panchayat Election - Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch - Secret Ballot - Rule 10(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964 - The Presiding Officer conducted the election by secret ballot upon demand by three members as per Rule 10(2). The court held that the procedure was valid and the election of Petitioner No. 1 as Sarpanch and Petitioner No. 4 as Deputy Sarpanch was lawful. (Paras 3-5) B) Gram Panchayat - No-confidence Motion - Notice Requirements - Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch was passed without proper notice as required under the Act. The court held that the motion was invalid and set aside the resolution. (Paras 6-8) C) Gram Panchayat - Election Dispute - Jurisdiction - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the validity of the election and no-confidence motion, finding that the authorities had acted in violation of statutory rules. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election of Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch conducted by secret ballot was valid under Rule 10(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules, 1964, and whether the subsequent no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch was validly passed.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the no-confidence motion and upholding the election of Petitioner No. 1 as Sarpanch and Petitioner No. 4 as Deputy Sarpanch.
Law Points
- Election of Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch
- Secret ballot procedure
- Rule 10(2) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules
- 1964
- No-confidence motion
- Notice requirements
- Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- 1959
- Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch) Election Rules
