Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by seven members of the Gram Panchayat of Kabansangvi, Ta. Chakur, District Latur, challenging an order of the Additional Collector, Latur, which had set aside a no-confidence motion passed against the then Sarpanch. The petitioners contended that on 23.01.2013 they moved a no-confidence motion proposal against the Sarpanch citing various irregularities. The Tahsildar convened a special meeting on 29.01.2013, notice of which was served on all members. Out of nine members, eight were present, including the Sarpanch; one member, the mother-in-law of the Sarpanch, was absent. The Tahsildar presided and allowed the Sarpanch to present his defence. Ultimately, seven out of the eight members present voted in favour of the motion, which was passed by more than two-thirds majority. The Sarpanch filed a dispute before the Additional Collector, who by order dated 26.04.2013 set aside the motion, primarily on the ground that no reasons were assigned by the Tahsildar regarding the charges and that prima facie no opportunity was given to discuss the issue. The petitioners argued that under law a no-confidence motion does not require setting out of grounds or charges, relying on Pravin Shripati Yadav v. Gram Panchyaat Minche and Babubhai M. Patel v. Nandlal K. Barot. They also pointed out that the Additional Collector's own order contained contradictory findings: paragraph 3 recorded satisfaction that members were given an opportunity to express their views, while paragraph 4 observed that prima facie no opportunity was given. The State supported the Collector's order, submitting that the motion was passed without debate. The Sarpanch argued that the motion was not properly proposed or seconded, one member did not receive notice, and proper procedure was not followed, citing Indubai Vedu Khairnar v. State of Maharashtra. The High Court examined the proceedings of the meeting and found that the Additional Collector's observation in paragraph 4 was contrary to his own finding in paragraph 3 and not supported by the record. The Court reiterated the settled legal position that a no-confidence motion is distinct from a censure motion and need not state any grounds or charges; its essence is loss of confidence of the majority. The contention regarding lack of proposal/seconding was not raised specifically before the Collector and hence not entertained. As to the non-receipt of notice by one member, the Court held that the aggrieved person would be that member, not the Sarpanch. Consequently, the impugned order of the Additional Collector was set aside, and the no-confidence motion passed on 29.01.2013 by seven out of eight members was declared valid. The authorities were directed to implement the motion and take follow-up steps within two weeks. The rule was made absolute, and the petition was allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Local Self Government - No-Confidence Motion - Requirement to State Grounds - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 (relevant rules) - The Court held that a motion of no confidence does not require setting out any grounds or charges, unlike a censure motion. Relying on Pravin Shripati Yadav v. Gram Panchyaat Minche (2013(2) ABR 611) and Babubhai M. Patel v. Nandlal K. Barot (AIR 1974 SC 2105), it was observed that the essential connotation is that the person has ceased to enjoy the confidence of the requisite majority. Therefore, the Additional Collector's order setting aside the motion on the ground that no reasons were assigned was contrary to law and liable to be quashed. (Paras 12, 14) B) Local Self Government - No-Confidence Motion - Opportunity to Discuss - Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - The Court perused the proceedings of the meeting and found that the Additional Collector had recorded satisfaction in paragraph 3 that members were given an opportunity to express views, while a stray observation in paragraph 4 stated that prima facie no opportunity was given. This contradiction was held to be perverse and contrary to the record. (Paras 10-11) C) Practice and Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - Grounds Not Raised Below - The Court held that a ground (such as failure to propose and second the motion) which was not specifically argued before the Additional Collector and not adjudicated upon, could not be raised for the first time in writ proceedings. (Para 13) D) Local Self Government - Notice to Members of Panchayat - Aggrieved Party Status - The contention that one member did not receive notice of the meeting was rejected because the aggrieved party would be that member, not the Sarpanch against whom the motion was passed. (Para 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Collector was justified in setting aside the no-confidence motion passed against the Sarpanch on 29.01.2013, particularly on the grounds that no reasons were assigned for the motion and that opportunity to discuss was not given, given the legal principle that a no-confidence motion need not set out any grounds or charges.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Additional Collector dated 26.04.2013 is set aside. The no-confidence motion passed in the meeting dated 29.01.2013 by seven out of eight members is declared valid. The respondent-authorities are directed to take immediate follow-up steps for implementation within two weeks. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- motion of no confidence does not require setting out grounds or charges
- distinction between no confidence motion and censure motion
- no confidence motion can be passed without any charge of impropriety
- essential connotation is cessation of confidence of majority
