Bombay High Court Quashes No-Confidence Motion Against Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Panchayat Samiti for Violation of Mandatory Notice Period Under Section 66(2) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. The court held that the 15-day notice requirement is mandatory and non-compliance invalidates the resolution.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, who were the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Panchayat Samiti Nagbhid, challenged a no-confidence motion passed against them in a special meeting dated 14-7-2020. They argued that the meeting was convened without giving the mandatory 15 days' notice as required under Section 66(2) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. The court examined the provision and noted that the language of Section 66(2) uses the word 'shall', indicating a mandatory requirement. The court held that the notice period of 15 days is mandatory and not directory, and any violation renders the resolution invalid. The court also noted that the respondents did not dispute the fact that the notice period was not complied with. Consequently, the court quashed the no-confidence motion and allowed the petition. The court did not award costs.

Headnote

A) Panchayat Raj - No-Confidence Motion - Notice Period - Section 66(2) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 - The court considered whether the no-confidence motion passed against the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Panchayat Samiti Nagbhid was valid when the meeting was convened on 14-7-2020 without giving the mandatory 15 days' notice. The court held that the requirement of 15 days' notice under Section 66(2) is mandatory and not directory, and the failure to comply renders the resolution invalid. The court quashed the no-confidence motion. (Paras 3-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the no-confidence motion passed against the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Panchayat Samiti is valid when the meeting was convened without giving the mandatory 15 days' notice as required under Section 66(2) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court quashed the no-confidence motion passed in the special meeting dated 14-7-2020 against the petitioners. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Statutory interpretation
  • mandatory notice period
  • no-confidence motion
  • Panchayat Samiti
  • Section 66(2) Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act 1961
  • quashing of resolution
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (BOM) (09) 79

WRIT PETITION STAMP No.8394 OF 2020

2020-09-25

R.K. Deshpande, Pushpa V. Ganediwala

Shri Amit Band, Advocate for Petitioners; Shri Shashibhushan Wahane, Advocate for Respondent No.3; Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1,2 & 9; Shri I.G. Meshram, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4,5,6,7 & 8

Sau. Pranaya W/o Ganesh Gaddamwar and Arvind S/o Nanaji Deshmukh

The Collector, Chandrapur; The Presiding Officer / Sub-Divisional Officer, Bramhapuri; Prafulla S/o Devidas Khaparde; Santosh Vitthal Radke; Shamsunder Somaji Purkam; Sau. Ragini Digambar Gurpude; Sau. Sushma Gopal Khamdeve; Sau. Ranjana Wasudeo Pendam; The Deputy District Election Officer, Chandrapur

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging a no-confidence motion passed against the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Panchayat Samiti Nagbhid.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the no-confidence motion passed in the special meeting dated 14-7-2020.

Filing Reason

The meeting was convened without giving the mandatory 15 days' notice as required under Section 66(2) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.

Issues

Whether the no-confidence motion passed against the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Panchayat Samiti is valid when the meeting was convened without giving the mandatory 15 days' notice under Section 66(2) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioners argued that the meeting was convened without giving the mandatory 15 days' notice as required under Section 66(2) of the Act, and therefore the resolution is invalid. The respondents did not dispute the fact that the notice period was not complied with.

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement of 15 days' notice under Section 66(2) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 is mandatory and not directory. Non-compliance with this mandatory notice period renders the no-confidence motion invalid.

Judgment Excerpts

The challenge in this petition is to the 'no-confidence' motion passed in Special Meeting dated 14-7-2020 by the Panchayat Samiti Nagbhid, Taluka Nagbhid, District Chandrapur against the petitioners, who are the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Nagbhid. It is urged that as per Section 66(2) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, the meeting for no-confidence motion can be convened only after giving 15 days' notice. The meeting was convened on 14-7-2020 without giving such notice. The requirement of 15 days' notice under Section 66(2) of the Act is mandatory and not directory. The failure to comply with the said requirement renders the resolution invalid.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the no-confidence motion passed in a special meeting dated 14-7-2020. The court heard the matter and passed judgment on 25-9-2020.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961: Section 66(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Petition by Father Seeking Custody of Children from Mother in Cross-Border Dispute. Court holds that habeas corpus is not maintainable when children are in lawful custody of their mother and custody issues ar...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes No-Confidence Motion Against Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Panchayat Samiti for Violation of Mandatory Notice Period Under Section 66(2) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. The court held th...