Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Indraraj Babulal Jaiswal and Sangitabai Laxman Shinde, were the Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch respectively of Grampanchayat Tembhurni. They challenged the no-confidence motion passed against them on 14.10.2019. The motion was initiated by respondent nos. 3 to 18, who were members of the Grampanchayat. The petitioners contended that the notice for the meeting was issued on 30.09.2019, which was only 14 days before the meeting, violating the mandatory 15-day notice period under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. They also argued that the meeting was not conducted properly, and they were not given a fair opportunity to defend themselves. The respondents argued that the notice period was sufficient and that the meeting was conducted as per law. The court examined the provisions of Sections 35 and 36 of the Act and found that the notice period of 15 days is mandatory. Since the notice was issued on 30.09.2019 for a meeting on 14.10.2019, the period was only 14 days, making the notice invalid. Additionally, the court noted procedural irregularities in the conduct of the meeting. Consequently, the court allowed both writ petitions, quashed the no-confidence motion, and restored the petitioners to their positions as Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch.
Headnote
A) Panchayati Raj - No-Confidence Motion - Notice Period - Section 35, Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The notice for a no-confidence motion must be given at least 15 days before the meeting. In the present case, the notice was issued on 30.09.2019 for a meeting on 14.10.2019, which is exactly 14 days, not 15 days, thus violating the mandatory requirement. Held that the notice period is mandatory and non-compliance renders the motion invalid. (Paras 5-7) B) Panchayati Raj - No-Confidence Motion - Meeting Conduct - Section 36, Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - The meeting must be conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure, including secret ballot. The petitioners alleged that the meeting was not conducted properly and that they were not given a reasonable opportunity to participate. The court found that the procedural irregularities vitiated the motion. (Paras 8-10) C) Panchayati Raj - No-Confidence Motion - Quorum - The quorum for the meeting must be as per the Act. The court noted that the meeting was attended by 13 members out of 19, which satisfied the quorum requirement, but the procedural defects in notice and conduct outweighed this. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the no-confidence motion moved against the Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch was validly conducted in compliance with the procedural requirements under Sections 35 and 36 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, particularly regarding the notice period and the conduct of the meeting.
Final Decision
The court allowed both writ petitions, quashed the no-confidence motion passed against the petitioners on 14.10.2019, and restored them to their positions as Sarpanch and Deputy Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Tembhurni.
Law Points
- No-confidence motion
- Sarpanch
- Deputy Sarpanch
- Notice period
- Procedural irregularity
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- Section 35
- Section 36
- Grampanchayat
- Meeting
- Quorum
- Secret ballot
- Reasonable opportunity
