Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale, was elected Sarpanch of Theur village panchayat in 2010. On 5 October 2011, a no confidence motion was initiated but the Tahsildar rejected the notice for not being in prescribed form. On 7 March 2012, another notice was given, and a special meeting on 12 March 2012 passed the motion with 13 out of 17 members voting in favour. The appellant challenged the resolution before the Additional Collector and Divisional Commissioner, both of whom dismissed his appeals. He then filed a writ petition seeking interim stay, which was refused by the learned Single Judge. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant argued that the first notice of 5 October 2011 constituted a motion that was not carried, barring a fresh motion within one year under Section 35(3-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The court held that the first notice was not 'moved' as it was rejected for non-compliance with prescribed form; thus, no bar arose. The court also noted that the appellant's challenge under Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules was not pressed. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the refusal of interim relief.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - No Confidence Motion - Bar on Fresh Motion - Section 35(3-A) Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - The court considered whether a second no confidence motion is barred within one year when the first notice was not moved or carried by the requisite majority - Held that the bar under Section 35(3-A) applies only if the motion was actually moved and not carried; if the notice was not moved at all, the bar does not apply - The court found that the first notice was not moved as it was rejected for not being in prescribed form, thus no bar arose - The appeal against refusal of interim relief was dismissed (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a fresh no confidence motion is barred under Section 35(3-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, when the first notice of motion was not moved or carried by the requisite majority, and whether the learned Single Judge erred in refusing interim relief.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge refusing interim relief is upheld.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 35(3-A) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act
- 1958
- bar on fresh no confidence motion within one year
- requirement of motion being 'moved' or 'carried'
- distinction between notice and motion
- Rule 17 of Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules
- 1959
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (01) 88
Letters Patent Appeal No. 312 of 2013 in Writ Petition No. 6967 of 2012
Mr.C.G. Gavnekar with Mr.Shiva Patil for Appellant, Mr.Shriniwas S. Patwardhan for Respondent No.1, Mr.A.B. Vagyani, Additional Government Pleader for State
Shri Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale
Shri Navnath Tukaram Kakde & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against refusal of interim relief in a writ petition challenging a no confidence motion against the Sarpanch.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought interim stay of the orders passed on the no confidence motion pending disposal of the writ petition.
Filing Reason
The appellant challenged the no confidence motion passed against him, alleging contravention of Section 35(3-A) of the Act and non-compliance with Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules.
Previous Decisions
The Dispute Application under Section 35(3-B) was dismissed by the Additional Collector, and the appeal to the Divisional Commissioner was rejected. The learned Single Judge issued rule but refused interim relief.
Issues
Whether the first notice of no confidence motion dated 5 October 2011 was 'moved' or 'carried' so as to bar a fresh motion within one year under Section 35(3-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in refusing interim relief to the appellant.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the first notice of no confidence motion was given on 5 October 2011 and was not carried, thus barring a fresh motion within one year under Section 35(3-A).
The respondents contended that the first notice was not moved as it was rejected for not being in prescribed form, so no bar arose.
Ratio Decidendi
The bar under Section 35(3-A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 applies only when a no confidence motion is actually moved and not carried. If the notice is rejected for non-compliance with prescribed form and not moved, no bar arises for a fresh motion within one year.
Judgment Excerpts
The bar under Section 35(3-A) applies only if the motion was actually moved and not carried; if the notice was not moved at all, the bar does not apply.
The first notice was not moved as it was rejected for not being in prescribed form, thus no bar arose.
Procedural History
The appellant was elected Sarpanch in 2010. On 5 October 2011, a no confidence notice was rejected by Tahsildar. On 7 March 2012, another notice was given, and a special meeting on 12 March 2012 passed the motion. The appellant filed a Dispute Application under Section 35(3-B) which was dismissed by the Additional Collector. An appeal to the Divisional Commissioner was rejected. The appellant then filed Writ Petition No. 6967 of 2012, in which the learned Single Judge issued rule but refused interim relief. This Letters Patent Appeal challenges that refusal.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958: 35, 35(3-A), 35(3-B)
- Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959: 17
