Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Savita Shrimant Ghule (Sarpanch) and Ganesh Vishnu Hagawne (Upa-Sarpanch) of Grampanchayat Ukkadgaon, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur, challenged the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Collector, Solapur, which dismissed their dispute applications under Section 35(3-B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and upheld the validity of a Motion of No Confidence passed against them. The petitioners contended that no resolution was actually moved in the special meeting called for discussing the no-confidence motion; only a notice was given to the Tahsildar. They relied on the Full Bench decision in Viswas Pandurang Mokal v. Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu & ors. (2011) 3 Mh L.J 500, which held that moving the motion is mandatory. They also cited Ramesh v. Sheshrao & Ors. (1998) 9 SCC 113 to argue that the bar under Section 35(3-A) applies if a previous motion was defeated for want of majority. The respondents argued that the motion was validly passed. The court, after hearing submissions, found that the Collector erred in dismissing the dispute applications as the mandatory requirement of moving a resolution was not complied with. The court quashed the Collector's order and held that the Motion of No Confidence was invalid. Consequently, the bar under Section 35(3-A) would apply, preventing a fresh motion for one year. The writ petitions were allowed.
Headnote
A) Panchayati Raj - No Confidence Motion - Mandatory Procedure - Section 35(3-B) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The court held that moving the motion i.e., a resolution of 'Motion of No Confidence' is mandatory in the special meeting; mere notice to the Tahsildar is insufficient. The Collector's order dismissing the dispute application was quashed as the resolution was not moved. (Paras 2-4)
B) Panchayati Raj - Bar on Fresh Motion - Section 35(3-A) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The court held that if a previous Motion of No Confidence has been defeated due to want of requisite majority, the bar under Section 35(3-A) is attracted, preventing a fresh motion for one year. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motion of No Confidence against the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch was validly passed when no resolution was moved in the special meeting, and whether the bar under Section 35(3-A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 applies.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the Collector's order dated 13.10.2023, and held that the Motion of No Confidence was invalid. The bar under Section 35(3-A) would apply, preventing a fresh motion for one year.
Law Points
- Motion of No Confidence must be moved as a resolution in the special meeting
- mere notice is insufficient
- Section 35(3-B) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- 1959
- Bar under Section 35(3-A) applies if previous motion defeated for want of majority
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (11) 18
Writ Petition No. 13310 of 2023 and Writ Petition No. 13321 of 2023
Mr. D. S. Mhaispurkar i/b. Mr. A. R. Kapadnis for Petitioners, Mr. Umesh Kurund for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7, Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for Respondent State
Savita Shrimant Ghule and Ganesh Vishnu Hagawne
Sangita Bibhishan Sanap & ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging the legality and validity of an order passed by the Collector, Solapur, dismissing dispute applications under Section 35(3-B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and upholding a Motion of No Confidence against the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the Collector's order dated 13.10.2023 and a declaration that the Motion of No Confidence was invalid.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the Collector's order on the ground that no resolution was moved in the special meeting for the no-confidence motion, violating mandatory procedure under Section 35(3-B) of the Act.
Previous Decisions
The Collector, Solapur dismissed the dispute applications and held that the Motion of No Confidence was validly passed.
Issues
Whether the Motion of No Confidence was validly passed when no resolution was moved in the special meeting.
Whether the bar under Section 35(3-A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 applies if the previous motion was defeated for want of majority.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that no resolution was moved in the special meeting; mere notice to Tahsildar is insufficient. Relied on Viswas Pandurang Mokal v. Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu & ors. (2011) 3 Mh L.J 500 and Ramesh v. Sheshrao & Ors. (1998) 9 SCC 113.
Respondents argued that the motion was validly passed.
Ratio Decidendi
Moving the motion i.e., a resolution of 'Motion of No Confidence' is mandatory in the special meeting; mere notice to the Tahsildar is insufficient. If a previous Motion of No Confidence has been defeated due to want of requisite majority, the bar under Section 35(3-A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 is attracted, preventing a fresh motion for one year.
Judgment Excerpts
It is the submission of Mr. Mhaispurkar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that no Resolution was moved in the Special Meeting called for discussing 'Motion of No Confidence'.
He submitted that moving the motion i.e. Resolution of 'Motion of No Confidence' is mandatory.
Procedural History
The Collector, Solapur passed the impugned order dated 13.10.2023 dismissing Grampanchayat Dispute Application Nos. 33 of 2023 and 34 of 2023 filed under Section 35(3-B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, upholding the Motion of No Confidence against the petitioners. The petitioners challenged this order by filing Writ Petition Nos. 13310 of 2023 and 13321 of 2023 before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: 35(3-B), 35(3-A)
