Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a no confidence motion passed against the petitioner, who was the elected Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Minche, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur. The petitioner, elected from a seat reserved for OBC, assumed office after the 2012 general election. On 19 June 2012, a special meeting convened by the Tahsildar considered a no confidence motion moved by nine members against the petitioner, which was carried by a majority of nine votes. The petitioner immediately objected, alleging that the signature of one member, Smt. Lokare, on the requisition notice was forged. Aggrieved by the motion, the petitioner filed a dispute before the Collector under Section 35(3B) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The Additional Collector dismissed the dispute on 14 August 2012. An appeal to the Divisional Commissioner under Section 35(3C) was also dismissed on 2 January 2013, despite the petitioner producing a private handwriting expert opinion supporting his forgery claim. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner had approached the High Court in Writ Petition No. 11973 of 2012, where the Court observed that the issue of forgery could be examined after the Commissioner's decision. The present writ petition challenged the concurrent orders of the Additional Collector and the Divisional Commissioner. The core legal issue raised was whether Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959, which requires a motion to be moved by a proposer and seconded by a seconder, is mandatory for meetings considering a no confidence motion, and whether non-compliance vitiates the proceedings. The petitioner argued that the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Vishwas P. Mokal v. Group Gram Panchayat Shihu & Ors had held that the Meetings Rules applied to no confidence motion meetings, and that Rule 17 was mandatory. The petitioner also relied on Vijay Ramchandra Katkar v. Group Gram Panchayat Pali & Ors and a Division Bench order in Letters Patent Appeal No. 268 of 2012. The respondents contended that the Full Bench did not conclusively decide whether Rule 17 was mandatory or directory, and that the will of the majority should prevail in a democratic set-up. They argued the rule should be treated as directory. The Court, after examining Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, Rule 2 of the No Confidence Motion Rules, 1975, and Rule 17 of the Meetings Rules, 1959, held that the Full Bench had clearly ruled that the Meetings Rules applied to no confidence motion meetings, and that Rule 17 required the motion to be moved and seconded. The Court found that the minutes of the meeting did not record that the motion was formally moved and seconded. Relying on the principle that failure to comply with a mandatory procedural rule vitiates the proceeding, the Court quashed the no confidence motion and the orders upholding it. The additional ground of forgery was not considered as the petition was allowed on the first ground. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the petitioner was restored as Sarpanch.
Headnote
A) Village Panchayat - No Confidence Motion - Mandatory Compliance - Rule 17 of Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 - Held that Rule 17, requiring the motion to be moved by proposer and seconded by seconder, is mandatory for meetings considering no confidence motion, and non-compliance with this procedural requirement vitiates the entire proceedings; following Full Bench in Vishwas P. Mokal v. Group Gram Panchayat Shihu & Ors (2011 (3) Bom. C.R. 495). The no confidence motion was quashed and set aside, and the petitioner restored as Sarpanch. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 is mandatory or directory and whether non-compliance with its requirement that the motion be moved and seconded vitiates the proceedings of a no confidence motion meeting.
Final Decision
Petition allowed; impugned orders of Additional Collector and Divisional Commissioner quashed and set aside; No Confidence Motion dated 19 June 2012 quashed; petitioner restored as Sarpanch.
Law Points
- Rule 17 of Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules
- 1959 is mandatory for meetings considering no confidence motion
- No confidence motion must be moved by proposer and seconded by seconder
- Failure to comply with Rule 17 vitiates the proceedings
