Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Prajakta Prabhakar Kadu, the Up-Sarpanch of Gram-Panchayat Shedsai, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31st July 2023 passed by the Collector, Raigad-Alibag. The Collector had allowed a dispute application under Section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, filed by the Sarpanch (Respondent No.4), declaring a no-confidence motion moved against the Sarpanch on 5th June 2023 as illegal. The sole ground for the Collector's decision was that the meeting in which the motion was carried was not conducted in accordance with Rules 17 to 26 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959. The petitioner argued that the Rules are directory, not mandatory, relying on the Full Bench decision in Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale v. Navnath Tukaram Kakde. It was submitted that six out of seven members of the Gram Panchayat had voted against the Sarpanch, thus complying with Section 35 of the Act. The respondent Sarpanch contended that the Rules are mandatory and that the meeting lacked thorough discussion and informed decision-making. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Rules are directory and that substantial compliance is sufficient. The court found that the motion was passed by the requisite majority and in accordance with Section 35. Consequently, the impugned order of the Collector was quashed and set aside, and the no-confidence motion was upheld.
Headnote
A) Panchayati Raj - No-Confidence Motion - Directory vs Mandatory Rules - Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1959, Section 35; Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959, Rules 17-26 - The court considered whether the meeting rules for no-confidence motions are mandatory or directory. Relying on Full Bench decision in Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale v. Navnath Tukaram Kakde, the court held that the Rules are directory and substantial compliance is sufficient. The Collector's order invalidating the motion solely on non-compliance with Rules 17-26 was set aside. (Paras 2-5) B) Panchayati Raj - No-Confidence Motion - Majority Requirement - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, Section 35 - The court noted that six out of seven members voted against the Sarpanch, satisfying the requirement under Section 35. The motion was passed in accordance with the Act, and the Collector erred in focusing on procedural rules. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 are mandatory or directory, and whether the no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch was validly passed.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 31st July 2023 passed by the Collector, Raigad-Alibag is quashed and set aside. The no-confidence motion dated 5th June 2023 against Respondent No.4-Sarpanch is upheld.
Law Points
- Rules under Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules
- 1959 are directory
- not mandatory
- substantial compliance with Section 35 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- 1959 is sufficient
- no-confidence motion valid if passed by majority of members.
