Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Ravindra Sukhdeo Sanap (Sarpanch) and Vishnu Eknath Nagare (Upsarpanch) of Gram Panchayat Andhera, challenged a notice dated 07.12.2013 issued by the Tahsildar, Deulgaon Raja, convening a no-confidence meeting on 13.12.2013. They argued that a previous no-confidence motion scheduled for 06.08.2013 was not moved as required under Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules. Consequently, under Section 35(3A) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958, a second motion could not be brought within one year. The court heard arguments from counsel for the petitioners, state respondents, and private respondents. The court examined the proceedings of the 06.08.2013 meeting and found that the motion was indeed not moved. Therefore, the subsequent notice was without jurisdiction. The court allowed the petition, quashing the notice dated 07.12.2013 and directing that the meeting scheduled for 13.12.2013 not be held.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - No-Confidence Motion - Compliance with Rule 17 - Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules - The court examined whether the motion of no confidence was moved as per Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules. The petitioners contended that the motion was not moved in the meeting held on 06.08.2013, and therefore, the subsequent notice dated 07.12.2013 for a fresh meeting on 13.12.2013 was without jurisdiction. The court held that if the motion was not moved, the second notice is invalid under Section 35(3A) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. (Paras 2-3) B) Panchayat Law - Bar on Second Motion - Section 35(3A) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 - The court considered the provision that if a motion of no confidence is not moved, a subsequent motion cannot be brought within one year. The court found that the motion was not moved on 06.08.2013, and thus the notice for the meeting on 13.12.2013 was without jurisdiction. The court quashed the notice and directed that the meeting not be held. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the no-confidence motion was moved as mandated by Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, and if not, whether the subsequent notice for a fresh no-confidence meeting is without jurisdiction under Section 35(3A) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the notice dated 07.12.2013, and directed that the meeting scheduled for 13.12.2013 not be held.
Law Points
- No-confidence motion must be moved as per Rule 17 of Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules
- failure to move motion renders subsequent notice invalid
- Section 35(3A) of Bombay Village Panchayat Act
- 1958 bars second motion within one year if first motion not moved.
