Bombay High Court Dismisses Sarpanch's Challenge to No Confidence Motion in Gram Panchayat Dispute. Petitioner's removal upheld as meeting complied with procedural requirements under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and Rules.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 153
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Manoj Ghanshyamdas Banode, was the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Talegaon Dashasar. On 05.12.2016, a no confidence motion was passed against him by the members of the Gram Panchayat in a meeting presided over by the Tahsildar. The petitioner challenged his removal by filing a dispute before the Additional Collector, Amravati, which was dismissed on 24.01.2017. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The main legal issues revolved around compliance with the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1964, specifically regarding quorum, notice period, and the manner of voting. The petitioner argued that the meeting lacked quorum because some members were disqualified, that the notice period was insufficient, and that the secret ballot was not properly conducted. The respondents contended that all procedural requirements were met. The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 35 and 55 of the Act and Rule 25 of the Rules. It found that the disqualification issue was not raised before the Presiding Officer and that the members present constituted the required quorum. The notice was issued on 28.11.2016 for the meeting on 05.12.2016, which complied with the seven-day notice requirement. The Presiding Officer recorded the votes and declared the result, and there was no evidence of any irregularity in the voting process. The court held that the no confidence motion was validly passed and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Additional Collector.

Headnote

A) Gram Panchayat - No Confidence Motion - Validity - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, Sections 35, 55, Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1964 - The petitioner, an elected Sarpanch, challenged his removal via a no confidence motion passed on 05.12.2016. The court examined whether the motion complied with procedural requirements including quorum, notice period, and secret ballot. Held that the motion was validly passed as the meeting had the requisite quorum, notice was properly given, and the voting was conducted by secret ballot as required. The Additional Collector's order dismissing the petitioner's dispute was upheld. (Paras 1-10)

B) Gram Panchayat - Quorum - No Confidence Motion - Section 55 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - The petitioner argued that the meeting lacked quorum because some members were disqualified. The court found that the disqualification issue was not raised before the Presiding Officer and that the members present constituted the required quorum. Held that the quorum was properly satisfied. (Paras 5-7)

C) Gram Panchayat - Notice Period - No Confidence Motion - Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1964 - The petitioner contended that the notice period was insufficient. The court noted that the notice was issued on 28.11.2016 for the meeting on 05.12.2016, which complied with the seven-day notice requirement. Held that the notice was valid. (Para 8)

D) Gram Panchayat - Secret Ballot - Recording of Votes - No Confidence Motion - The petitioner argued that the secret ballot was not properly conducted. The court observed that the Presiding Officer recorded the votes and declared the result, and there was no evidence of any irregularity. Held that the voting process was in order. (Para 9)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner Sarpanch was valid in law, particularly with regard to compliance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and the Rules framed thereunder, including issues of quorum, notice period, and the manner of voting.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the Additional Collector, Amravati is upheld. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • No confidence motion against Sarpanch
  • Gram Panchayat
  • Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1958
  • Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules
  • 1964
  • Quorum
  • Notice period
  • Presiding Officer
  • Secret ballot
  • Recording of votes
  • Disqualification of members
  • Right to vote
  • Removal of Sarpanch
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (01) 129

Writ Petition No.1425 of 2017

2019-01-21

Manish Pitale, J.

Mr. A.S. Shukla for Petitioner; Ms. T.H. Khan, AGP for Respondent No.1; Mr. A.P. Kalmegh for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, 8, 10 to 13; Mr. P.S. Gavai for Respondent Nos. 15 to 18

Manoj Ghanshyamdas Banode

Presiding Officer/Tahsildar, Dhamangaon Rly., Taluka, Dist- Amravati & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch pursuant to a no confidence motion.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought to quash the no confidence motion passed on 05.12.2016 and the order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the Additional Collector, Amravati dismissing his dispute.

Filing Reason

The petitioner was removed from the post of Sarpanch by a no confidence motion, which he alleged was passed in violation of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and the Rules thereunder.

Previous Decisions

The Additional Collector, Amravati, by order dated 24.01.2017, dismissed the dispute filed by the petitioner against the no confidence motion.

Issues

Whether the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner was valid in law? Whether the meeting had the requisite quorum as per the Act? Whether the notice period for the meeting was sufficient? Whether the voting by secret ballot was properly conducted?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the meeting lacked quorum because some members were disqualified and that the notice period was insufficient. Petitioner contended that the secret ballot was not properly conducted and that the Presiding Officer did not record votes correctly. Respondents argued that all procedural requirements were complied with and that the motion was validly passed.

Ratio Decidendi

The no confidence motion against the Sarpanch was validly passed as the meeting complied with the quorum requirements under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, the notice period under Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1964 was satisfied, and the voting by secret ballot was properly conducted by the Presiding Officer.

Judgment Excerpts

The challenge in this writ petition is raised by the petitioner who was an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Talegaon Dashasar, to his removal from the said elected position in pursuance of a no confidence motion passed against him on 05.12.2016... The court found that the disqualification issue was not raised before the Presiding Officer and that the members present constituted the required quorum. The notice was issued on 28.11.2016 for the meeting on 05.12.2016, which complied with the seven-day notice requirement.

Procedural History

The petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Talegaon Dashasar. On 05.12.2016, a no confidence motion was passed against him. He filed a dispute before the Additional Collector, Amravati, which was dismissed on 24.01.2017. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition on 17.02.2017. The petition was heard and finally disposed of on 21.01.2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958: Sections 35, 55
  • Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1964: Rule 25
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Sarpanch's Challenge to No Confidence Motion in Gram Panchayat Dispute. Petitioner's removal upheld as meeting complied with procedural requirements under Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and Rules.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal of CSIR Employee for Non-Communication of ACRs - Failure to Communicate Annual Confidential Reports Violates Principles of Natural Justice and Transparency.