Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a no-confidence motion moved against the Upsarpanch of Group Grampanchayat, Adkhal, Taluka Dapoli, District Ratnagiri. The Grampanchayat comprised nine elected members, including the petitioners and respondent no.2. On 18 October 2023, eight of the nine members, i.e., all except respondent no.2, submitted a notice of intention to move a no-confidence motion against the Upsarpanch. The Tahsildar convened a special meeting on 25 October 2023, which was presided over by the Tahsildar and attended by all members, including respondent no.2. The motion was passed by a majority of eight votes in favour and one against, with respondent no.2 voting in his own favour. The Tahsildar declared the motion validly passed.
Respondent no.2 challenged the motion before the District Collector, Ratnagiri, by filing Dispute Application No.9 of 2023. The District Collector, by order dated 16 July 2024, set aside the no-confidence motion, primarily on the ground that the reasons mentioned in the notice of motion were inconsistent with the reasons discussed in the meeting. Aggrieved, the eight members who had moved the motion filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, seeking to quash the Collector's order.
The core legal issue was whether a no-confidence motion under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, is invalid if the reasons stated in the notice differ from those deliberated at the meeting. The petitioners contended that a no-confidence motion is an expression of collective loss of confidence and does not require specific grounds. They relied on judgments in Yamunabai Laxman Chavan v. Sarubai Tukaram Jadhav and Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot. Respondent no.2 argued that the notice was issued under Section 45 of the Act, not Section 35, and that the discrepancy in reasons vitiated the motion.
The Court examined the notice and held that although it referred to Section 45, its contents clearly indicated a no-confidence motion under Section 35. Addressing the substantive question, the Court observed that Section 35 requires brief reasons in the notice but does not mandate that the motion be passed on the same reasons. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it emphasized that a no-confidence motion signifies a want of confidence, not a finding of misconduct. It is the expression of the majority’s will, and once voted upon, it must be upheld irrespective of the grounds stated. The Court noted that respondent no.2 was present at the meeting, had an opportunity to respond, and suffered no prejudice. Accordingly, the impugned order of the District Collector was quashed, and the no-confidence motion passed on 25 October 2023 was restored as valid. The writ petition was allowed, and rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - No Confidence Motion - Validity - Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, Section 35 - The District Collector set aside a no confidence motion against an Upsarpanch on the ground that reasons in the notice differed from those in the meeting minutes. The Court held that a no confidence motion is an expression of want of confidence by the majority, not a censure motion, and does not require the motion to be passed on the same reasons stated in the notice. Discrepancy in reasons is not fatal. The motion was passed by 8 out of 9 members in presence of the Upsarpanch, who had opportunity to speak, thus no prejudice. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
B) Interpretation of Statutes - Notice Requirements - Section 35 vs. Section 45 - Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, Sections 35, 45 - The notice dated 18.10.2023 mentioned Section 45 but its contents clearly indicated a no confidence motion under Section 35. The Court interpreted the notice as a whole and held it was under Section 35, not Section 45. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a no confidence motion passed under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 must be in consonance with the reasons stated in the notice of motion, and whether a discrepancy in reasons invalidates the motion.
Final Decision
Writ Petition allowed. The impugned order of the District Collector, Ratnagiri dated 16.07.2024 in Dispute Application No.9/2023 is quashed and set aside. The no-confidence motion passed on 25.10.2023 against respondent no.2 is held valid. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- No confidence motion signifies loss of confidence
- not required to be based on specific charges
- Discrepancy between reasons in notice and reasons discussed in meeting does not invalidate motion
- Section 35 of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act
- 1959 governs no confidence motion
- not Section 45
- Motion passed by majority is valid irrespective of grounds
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 177
Writ Petition No. 12721 of 2024
Citation not available, 2025:BHC-KOL:1828-DB
Mr. Mohit Prabhakar Dalvi, Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, Mr. Harshad Inamdar
Varsha Vikas Shirke, Manali Mohan Chaudhari, Sachin Gangaram Kadam, Darshana Dinesh Kadam, Ravindra Govind Ghag, Amir Abdul Gafur Wakankar, Anjali Keshav Malekar, Ramisa Khairuddin Kazi
The District Collector, Ratnagiri and Rauf A. Karim Kazi
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 order of the District Collector, Ratnagiri dated 16.07.2024 setting aside a no-confidence motion passed against the Upsarpanch of Group Grampanchayat, Adkhal.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (eight elected members of the Grampanchayat) sought to quash the District Collector's order and restore the no-confidence motion passed on 25.10.2023.
Filing Reason
The District Collector allowed the Upsarpanch's dispute application and set aside the no-confidence motion on the ground that the reasons mentioned in the notice of intention differed from the reasons discussed at the special meeting.
Previous Decisions
The Tahsildar, Dapoli convened the special meeting on 25.10.2023 and declared the no-confidence motion validly passed by majority of 8 out of 9 members. Respondent no.2 filed Dispute Application No.9/2023 before the District Collector, who vide order dated 16.07.2024 set aside the motion.
Issues
Whether a no-confidence motion passed under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 is invalid if the reasons mentioned in the notice of motion differ from those discussed in the meeting.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners: No-confidence motion passed by 8/9 majority; procedure fully complied with; respondent no.2 present and given opportunity; law does not require the motion to be passed on the same reasons as in notice; reliance on Yamunabai Laxman Chavan v. Sarubai Tukaram Jadhav.
Respondent no.2: Notice was issued under Section 45 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, not Section 35; reasons in notice differed from those discussed at the meeting, therefore motion invalid.
Ratio Decidendi
A motion of no confidence is an expression by the elected members of a legislative body of a want of confidence or faith in the person against whom it is moved. Under the scheme of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, while the notice of intention to move a no-confidence motion under Section 35 must briefly state the reasons, it is not necessary that the motion be passed on those identical reasons. The essence is the loss of confidence, not proof of misconduct. Discrepancy between the reasons in the notice and those discussed at the meeting does not invalidate the motion, particularly when the person against whom the motion is passed is present, has full opportunity to be heard, and no prejudice is established. The majority vote expresses the collective will, and once passed, the person ceases to hold the office validly.
Judgment Excerpts
The essence of a motion of no confidence is the expression by the elected members of a legislative body of a want of confidence or faith in the person or persons against whom the motion is moved.
It is no doubt true that according to the form prescribed the ground for the motion of no confidence has to be mentioned in the notice of intention to move a motion of no confidence. It dos not, however, follow therefrom that the ground must also be specified when a motion of no confidence is actually passed against a President.
There is no legal bar to the passing of a motion of no confidence against an authority in the absence of any charge of impropriety or lapse on the part of that authority. The essential connotation of a no-confidence motion is that the party against whom such motion is passed has ceased to enjoy the confidence of the requisite majority of members.
Procedural History
The petitioners and respondent no.2 are elected members of Group Grampanchayat, Adkhal, Taluka Dapoli, District Ratnagiri. On 18.10.2023, eight out of nine members moved a notice of intention to move a no-confidence motion against respondent no.2, the Upsarpanch. The Tahsildar, Dapoli convened a special meeting on 25.10.2023; the meeting was presided over by the Tahsildar and attended by all members including respondent no.2. The no-confidence motion was passed by a majority of 8 votes in favour and 1 against (respondent no.2 voted for himself). The Tahsildar declared the motion validly passed. Respondent no.2 challenged the motion by filing Dispute Application No.9/2023 before the District Collector, Ratnagiri. The District Collector, by order dated 16.07.2024, allowed the dispute application and set aside the no-confidence motion. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition impugning that order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959: Section 35, Section 45
