Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, members of Village Panchayat Futana, challenged an order of the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, which had allowed an appeal by respondent No.4 (the Sarpanch) and quashed a resolution of no confidence passed against him. The no confidence motion was moved on 20.08.2011 by six members out of seven, and in the meeting convened on 26.08.2011, all six members present voted in favour, leading to the resolution. Respondent No.4, who was absent, challenged the meeting before the Additional Collector, Hingoli, arguing that he had not been properly served notice as required under Rule 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959, which mandates service on an adult male member. The notice had been served on his mother. The Additional Collector rejected the challenge, relying on subrule (2B) of Rule 2 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, which permits service on any adult member of the family. On further appeal, the Divisional Commissioner reversed that decision, holding that Rule 7 of the Meeting Rules was mandatory and had not been complied with, thereby quashing the resolution. The petitioners then approached the High Court. The core legal issue was whether the service of notice on an adult female member could be considered valid for a special meeting held under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, in light of the specific provision in the No Confidence Motion Rules and the Full Bench decision in Viswas Pandurang Mokal v. Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu and others. The petitioners argued that subrule (2B) specifically allowed service on any adult member, that Rule 7 was merely directory, and that the Full Bench had clarified that Meeting Rules apply only to the extent they are not contradicted by the No Confidence Motion Rules. Respondent No.4 contended that the Full Bench had categorically held that Meeting Rules govern the conduct of a no-confidence meeting, and thus strict compliance with Rule 7 was mandatory. The High Court, after examining the Full Bench judgment, noted that while Meeting Rules generally apply to a special meeting under Section 35, they are subject to any contrary provision in the Act or the No Confidence Motion Rules. Since subrule (2B) of the 1975 Rules specifically deals with service of notice on an adult member, it constitutes a contrary provision and prevails over the general requirement in Rule 7. The court held that the service of notice on the Sarpanch’s mother was valid, and the no-confidence motion stood. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 09.12.2011 was quashed, and the resolution of no confidence was upheld. No costs were ordered.
Headnote
A) Service of Notice - No Confidence Motion - Subrule (2B) of Rule 2 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 - The rule provides that notice may be served on any adult member of the family if the Sarpanch cannot be found, which is a specific provision governing service of notice for no-confidence motions, and thus Rule 7 of the Meeting Rules requiring service on an adult male member is directory and not mandatory - Held that service on the mother of respondent Sarpanch was valid (Paras 8-9)
B) Applicability of Meeting Rules - Special Meeting for No Confidence Motion - Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 Section 35 - Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 - The Full Bench in Viswas Pandurang Mokal v. Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu, 2011 (3) Mh.L.J. 500, held that Meeting Rules apply to special meetings under Section 35, but subject to any contrary provision in the Act or the No Confidence Motion Rules - Since subrule (2B) of Rule 2 of the No Confidence Motion Rules specifically provides for service on adult member, it overrides the general requirement of Rule 7 of Meeting Rules (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether service of notice on an adult female member of the family is valid for a special meeting for no-confidence motion under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, when Rule 7 of the Meeting Rules requires service on an adult male member, in view of subrule (2B) of Rule 2 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975?
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. The order dated 09.12.2011 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 104/2011 is quashed and set aside. The resolution of no confidence passed against Respondent No.4 in the meeting dated 26.08.2011 is upheld. Rule made absolute with no costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- service of notice on adult member sufficient under No Confidence Motion Rules
- Rule 7 of Meeting Rules directory when contrary provision in No Confidence Motion Rules
- Full Bench decision applicability
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 145
Writ Petition No.2267 of 2012
Mr. S.J. Salunke for petitioners; Mr. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3; Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi for Respondent No.4
Punjaji s/o Shamrao Kadam & Others
The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad & Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Divisional Commissioner setting aside the resolution of no confidence motion against the Sarpanch
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the Divisional Commissioner's order dated 09.12.2011 and to uphold the no confidence motion resolution passed on 26.08.2011
Filing Reason
The Divisional Commissioner had allowed the Sarpanch's appeal and quashed the no confidence motion on the ground that the notice of the meeting was not served on an adult male member as required by Rule 7 of the Meeting Rules, 1959
Previous Decisions
The Additional Collector, Hingoli, dismissed the Sarpanch's appeal and upheld the no confidence motion, holding that service of notice on an adult member of the family was valid under the No Confidence Motion Rules; the Divisional Commissioner reversed that decision and set aside the resolution
Issues
Whether service of notice on an adult female member of the family satisfies the legal requirement for a special meeting convened to consider a no confidence motion against a Sarpanch, in view of subrule (2B) of Rule 2 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, and the Full Bench decision in Viswas Pandurang Mokal v. Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu
Whether Rule 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959, which requires service of notice on an adult male member, is mandatory or directory in the context of a no confidence motion meeting
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that subrule (2B) of Rule 2 of the No Confidence Motion Rules, 1975 specifically permits service of notice on any adult member of the family; that Rule 7 of the Meeting Rules is merely directory and not mandatory; and that the Full Bench in Viswas Pandurang Mokal held that Meeting Rules apply only to the extent they are not contrary to the No Confidence Motion Rules
Respondent No.4 contended that the Full Bench decision makes the Meeting Rules applicable to a special meeting under Section 35 and that Rule 7 was mandatory; hence, service of notice on his mother (a female member) was not valid and the resolution should be quashed
Ratio Decidendi
Where the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 contain a specific provision (subrule 2B) for service of notice on any adult member of the family, the requirement of Rule 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 regarding service on an adult male member is directory and not mandatory. The Meeting Rules apply to a special meeting under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 only insofar as they are not contrary to the provisions of the Act or the No Confidence Motion Rules. Service of notice on the mother of the Sarpanch is valid and sufficient compliance.
Judgment Excerpts
Subrule (2 B) of Rule 2 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, provides thus: 2B Every notice under subrule (1), wherever it may be practicable, be served by delivering or tendering it to the Sarpanch or UpaSarpanch to whom it is addressed or, where such person cannot be found, by delivery or tendering it to any adult member of his family residing with him; and if no such adult member can be found or, where the Sarpanch, UpaSarpanch or sult adult member, as the case may be, refuses to accept the notice, it shall be served by affixing it, in the presence of two witnesses, on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which such Sarpanch or Upa Sarpanch ordinarily dwells. The notice served in this manner shall be deemed to be served or tendered or delivered to the concerned Sarpanch or Upa Sarpanch.
The Full Bench has expressed an opinion that the provisions of Meeting Rules to the extent that no contrary provision either in the Act itself or in the No Confidence Motion Rules, 1975, would apply to a meeting called under Section 35.
Procedural History
On 20.08.2011, six members of the Village Panchayat Futana submitted a requisition to the Tahsildar for a no confidence motion against the Sarpanch (Respondent No.4). The Tahsildar convened a special meeting on 26.08.2011; all six members attended and voted in favour, passing the motion. Respondent No.4, who was absent, challenged the resolution before the Additional Collector, Hingoli, on the ground that notice had not been served on an adult male member as required by Rule 7 of the Meeting Rules. The Additional Collector dismissed the appeal, holding that service on the Sarpanch's mother was valid under subrule (2B) of the No Confidence Motion Rules. Respondent No.4 then appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, who by order dated 09.12.2011 allowed the appeal, set aside the resolution, and held that Rule 7 was mandatory and not complied with. The petitioners, being the members who moved the motion, filed the present writ petition challenging the Divisional Commissioner's order.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958: 35
- Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959: 7
- Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975: 2(2B)
