Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Sampada Vilas Mahargude, was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Talewadi, Taluka Atpadi, District Sangli. A motion of no confidence was passed against her in a meeting held on 17th July 2023. She challenged the motion by filing an appeal under Section 35(3-B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 before the Collector, Sangli, who rejected the appeal by order dated 20th October 2023. Aggrieved, she filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that the notice of the proposed no-confidence motion along with the requisition was not served on her as required under Section 35 of the Act and Rule 2(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975. She alleged that the notice was allegedly served on her son, who was not residing with her, and that her son and husband filed affidavits denying receipt of any notice. The court examined the provisions and found that service on the son was not valid service. The court held that the mandatory requirement of serving the notice on the Sarpanch was not complied with, violating principles of natural justice and depriving the petitioner of her right to speak in the meeting under Section 35(2). Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and set aside the no-confidence motion.
Headnote
A) Panchayati Raj - No-Confidence Motion - Service of Notice - Section 35, Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Rule 2(3), Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 - The court held that service of notice of a no-confidence motion on the son of the Sarpanch, who was not residing with her, does not constitute valid service. The mandatory requirement of serving the notice on the Sarpanch personally or in accordance with the Rules was not complied with, rendering the no-confidence motion illegal. (Paras 4-6) B) Panchayati Raj - No-Confidence Motion - Right to be Heard - Section 35(2), Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The court emphasized that the Sarpanch has a vital right to speak in the meeting where the no-confidence motion is considered. Non-service of notice deprives the Sarpanch of this right and violates principles of natural justice. (Para 5) C) Panchayati Raj - No-Confidence Motion - Mandatory Requirements - Rule 2(3), Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 - The court noted that the notice must contain the requisition moved by the members. Failure to serve the notice with the requisition is a procedural defect that invalidates the motion. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order rejecting the appeal against the no-confidence motion is sustainable when the notice of the motion was not served on the petitioner-Sarpanch as required under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 and the Rules thereunder.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 20th October 2023 passed by the Collector, Sangli, and set aside the no-confidence motion passed against the petitioner in the meeting dated 17th July 2023.
Law Points
- Service of notice of no-confidence motion on Sarpanch is mandatory
- Service on son not valid service
- Non-compliance with Rule 2(3) of Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules
- 1975
- Violation of principles of natural justice
