Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Bombay High Court arose from a no confidence motion passed against the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Theur, Pune. The appellant, who was the Sarpanch, had been elected in 2010. Some members of the Panchayat moved a no confidence motion under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. A special meeting convened by the Tahsildar was held on 12 March 2012, attended by all 17 members, and the motion was carried by 13 members voting in favour. The appellant challenged the resolution by filing a dispute under Section 35(3B) before the Additional Collector, which was dismissed. An appeal to the Divisional Commissioner was also rejected. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the orders, contending inter alia that the motion was not formally moved or seconded as required by Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959. The Single Judge rejected the contention regarding violation of Section 35(3A), but granted rule on the Rule 17 issue, while refusing interim relief because of the deeming fiction under Section 35(3D) that the post falls vacant after rejection of appeal. The appeal against refusal of interim relief came before a Division Bench. Before the Division Bench, reliance was placed on an earlier Division Bench judgment in Vishnu Ramchandra Patil v. Group Gram Panchayat, Kharivli, which had held Rule 17 to be mandatory based on a full bench decision in Viswas Pandurang Mokal v. Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu. The referring Division Bench expressed its inability to agree with that interpretation and referred the matter to a larger bench to determine whether Rule 17 is directory or mandatory in the context of a no confidence motion under Section 35. The full bench of three judges heard the reference and reserved judgment on 12 September 2014, pronouncing its decision on 9 October 2014. The judgment of the larger bench addresses the conflict and lays down the legal position on the procedural requirements for a valid no confidence motion.
Headnote
A) Village Panchayats - No Confidence Motion - Procedure - Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, Section 35; Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959, Rule 17 - The question whether failure to formally move and second a motion of no confidence under Rule 17 renders the motion invalid was referred to a larger bench following disagreement with the judgment in Vishnu Ramchandra Patil v. Group Gram Panchayat, Kharivli. The referring bench observed that no judgment holds Rule 17 mandatory for all motions, and that the earlier Division Bench's conclusion based on Viswas Pandurang Mokal v. Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu required reconsideration. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether failure to formally move and second a motion of no confidence as required by Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959 would render the motion of no confidence carried by the requisite majority under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, invalid?
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Rule 17 procedure for moving and seconding motions
- mandatory or directory
- no confidence motion under Section 35 of BVP Act
- deeming fiction under Section 35(3D)
- reliance on Vishwas Pandurang Mokal case
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (05) 130
Letters Patent Appeal No. 312 of 2013 in Writ Petition No. 6967 of 2012
Mohit S. Shah, R. M. Savant, M. S. Sonak
Mr. C G Gavnekar, Mr. Ashutosh Gavnekar, Mr. Shiva Patil, Mr. Shriniwas S Patwardhan, Mr. Ruturaj P Pawar, Mr. Ajay D Magadum, Mr. A B Vagyani, Mr. P G Sawant
Shri Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale
Shri Navnath Tukaram Kakde and Others (Respondent Nos.1 to 13), Tahsildar Haveli, Grampanchayat Theur, Addl. Collector Pune, Divisional Commissioner Pune, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge to a no confidence motion passed against the Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat, under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, and subsequent orders confirming it.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the resolution of no confidence and the orders of the Additional Collector and Divisional Commissioner upholding it; specifically, the appeal before the Division Bench challenged the refusal of interim relief by the Single Judge.
Filing Reason
The appellant alleged procedural irregularities, including non-compliance with Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules (motion not formally moved or seconded) and contravention of Section 35(3A) of the Act.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Collector dismissed the dispute application under Section 35(3B). The Divisional Commissioner rejected the appeal. The Single Judge of the High Court rejected the ground under Section 35(3A), granted rule on the Rule 17 issue, but refused interim relief due to the deeming fiction under Section 35(3D).
Issues
Whether failure to formally move and second a motion of no confidence as required by Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959 renders the motion invalid under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
Whether Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959 is mandatory or directory in the context of a no confidence motion.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant contended that the no confidence motion was vitiated because it was not proposed or seconded as required by Rule 17 and that there was violation of Section 35(3A).
The respondents defended the validity of the motion, arguing that the procedural requirements were directory and that the motion was carried by overwhelming majority.
Ratio Decidendi
Ratio not explicitly mentioned
Judgment Excerpts
Whether failure to formally move and second a motion of no confidence as required by Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rule, 1959 would render the motion of no confidence carried by the requisite majority under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, invalid ?
20 We are afraid we are unable to subscribe to the above reasoning or persuade ourselves to come to the conclusions arrived at by the learned Division Bench in the case of Vishnu Ramchandra Patil (supra).
Procedural History
Elections to Gram Panchayat Theur were held in 2010; the appellant was elected Sarpanch. Respondents moved a no confidence motion by giving notice under Section 35 to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar initially disposed of the notice for not being in prescribed form; a second notice was submitted. A special meeting was convened on 12 March 2012, attended by all 17 members; the motion was passed by 13 votes in favour. The appellant filed a dispute under Section 35(3B) before the Additional Collector, who dismissed it. The appeal to the Divisional Commissioner was rejected. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 6967 of 2012; the Single Judge rejected the challenge under Section 35(3A), granted rule on the Rule 17 issue, but refused interim relief due to Section 35(3D). The Letters Patent Appeal No. 312 of 2013 was filed against refusal of interim relief. The Division Bench, disagreeing with an earlier Division Bench in Vishnu Ramchandra Patil, referred the question of law to a larger bench. The full bench heard the matter and reserved judgment on 12 September 2014, pronouncing it on 9 October 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958: Section 35, Section 35(3), Section 35(3A), Section 35(3B), Section 35(3D)
- Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959: Rule 17
