Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Parmanand Upwanshi, was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Murdada, in November/December 2012. Respondent nos. 3 to 8 moved the Tahsildar (respondent no.2) to convene a meeting for a no confidence motion against the petitioner. The Tahsildar issued notices for a Special General Meeting to be held on 21st May 2013. The meeting was conducted on that date and the no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Collector (respondent no.1), who dismissed the appeal by order dated 20th June 2013. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging the resolution and the appellate order. The main legal issue was whether the meeting was validly convened in compliance with Section 35(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, which requires seven clear days notice. The petitioner argued that the notice period was not complied with, while the respondents contended that the notice was valid. The Court examined the record and found that the notice was issued on 14th May 2013 for a meeting on 21st May 2013, which gave only six clear days, not seven. The Court held that the requirement of seven clear days notice is mandatory and its non-compliance vitiates the meeting and the resolution. Consequently, the Court quashed the resolution of no confidence and the order of the Additional Collector, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - No Confidence Motion - Notice Period - Section 35(2) - The issue was whether the no confidence motion against the Sarpanch was valid when the meeting was convened without giving seven clear days notice as required under Section 35(2) of the Act. The Court held that the requirement of seven clear days notice is mandatory and non-compliance renders the resolution invalid. The Court quashed the resolution and the order of the Additional Collector dismissing the appeal. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner-Sarpanch is valid when the meeting was convened without complying with the mandatory notice period of seven clear days as required under Section 35(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The resolution of no confidence passed against the petitioner in the meeting dated 21st May 2013 and the order dated 20th June 2013 passed by the Additional Collector, Gondia, are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- No confidence motion against Sarpanch
- Notice period for special meeting
- Section 35(2) of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- 1959
- Mandatory requirement of seven clear days notice
- Quashing of resolution for non-compliance
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (08) 131
Writ Petition No.4018/2013
S.K. Tambde for petitioner; P.D. Rane, AGP for respondents 1 and 2; D.V. Mahajan for respondents 3 to 8
Parmanand S/o Bhaulal Upwanshi
Additional Collector, Gondia; Tahsildar, Gondia; Dayaram Tumaram Agashe; Mamrulal Bhojanlal Jagane; Saraswatibai w/o Prabhulal Lihare; Sangitabai w/o Ajay Chaudhary; Ushabai w/o Suresh Ghule; Kamalabai w/o Babulal Shende
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the resolution of no confidence motion passed against the petitioner-Sarpanch and the appellate order dismissing his appeal.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the no confidence resolution and the order of the Additional Collector.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the no confidence motion passed against him in a meeting convened without complying with the mandatory notice period under Section 35(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Collector dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the no confidence resolution by order dated 20th June 2013.
Issues
Whether the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner is valid when the meeting was convened without giving seven clear days notice as required under Section 35(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the notice for the special meeting was issued on 14th May 2013 for a meeting on 21st May 2013, which gives only six clear days, not seven, thus violating Section 35(2) of the Act.
The respondents contended that the notice was valid and the meeting was properly convened.
Ratio Decidendi
The requirement of seven clear days notice under Section 35(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 is mandatory. Non-compliance with this requirement renders the meeting and the resolution of no confidence invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
The requirement of giving seven clear days notice is mandatory and the non-compliance with the said requirement vitiates the meeting and the resolution passed in the meeting.
In the present case, the notice was issued on 14th May 2013 for the meeting to be held on 21st May 2013. Thus, the notice period is of six clear days only.
Procedural History
The petitioner was elected Sarpanch in November/December 2012. Respondent nos. 3 to 8 moved the Tahsildar for a no confidence motion. The Tahsildar issued notice for a meeting on 21st May 2013. The meeting was held and the no confidence motion was passed. The petitioner appealed to the Additional Collector, who dismissed the appeal on 20th June 2013. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: 35(2)
