Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chandrakant Bapuso Rugge, was the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat, Tamdalge. He tendered his resignation on 17 August 2012, addressed to the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti. The Block Development Officer directed that the resignation be placed for approval at the Panchayat Samiti meeting scheduled for 10 September 2012. However, on 23 August 2012, more than one-third of the total members of the Panchayat requisitioned a special meeting to consider a motion of no confidence against the petitioner, in accordance with Section 35(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958. The Tehsildar convened the special meeting for 29 August 2012. At the meeting, the petitioner objected to the motion on the ground that he had already resigned, but the motion was carried with seven out of nine members expressing no confidence. The petitioner then filed an application before the Additional Collector on 3 September 2012, arguing that the no confidence motion should not have been taken up due to his resignation and that there was non-compliance with Rule 17 of the Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1959, as there was no proposer or seconder. The Additional Collector dismissed the application on 2 November 2012. The petitioner challenged both the no confidence motion and the Additional Collector's order in the High Court. The court held that the resignation was not effective until approved by the Panchayat Samiti, and therefore the petitioner continued to be Sarpanch when the no confidence motion was passed. The court also noted that the Full Bench decision in Tatyasaheb R. Kale v. Navnath T. Kakde had clarified that no proposer or seconder is required for a no confidence motion under Section 35. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the no confidence motion and the Additional Collector's order.
Headnote
A) Panchayat Law - Resignation of Sarpanch - Effectiveness - Section 35 Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - Resignation of Sarpanch is not effective until approved by the Panchayat Samiti - The petitioner Sarpanch tendered resignation on 17 August 2012, but it was to be considered on 10 September 2012 - Meanwhile, a no confidence motion was passed on 29 August 2012 - Held that the resignation not having been approved, the Sarpanch continued in office and the no confidence motion was valid (Paras 1-10).
B) Panchayat Law - No Confidence Motion - Procedure - Section 35 Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 - Rule 17 of Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1959 - The requirement of proposer and seconder under Rule 17 does not apply to no confidence motions under Section 35 - The Full Bench decision in Tatyasaheb R. Kale v. Navnath T. Kakde held that no confidence motion can be moved without a proposer or seconder - Held that the challenge based on violation of Rule 17 is not sustainable (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a no confidence motion against a Sarpanch can be validly passed after the Sarpanch has tendered his resignation but before the resignation is approved by the Panchayat Samiti.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the no confidence motion passed on 29 August 2012 and the order of the Additional Collector dated 2 November 2012.
Law Points
- Resignation not effective until approval by Panchayat Samiti
- No confidence motion can be moved despite resignation
- No requirement of proposer and seconder for no confidence motion under Rule 17 of Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules
- 1959
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (01) 24
WRIT PETITION NO. 10781 OF 2012
Ms Pooja Thorat a/w. Mr. V.M. Thorat for the Petitioner, Ms Vaishali Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3, Mr. Manoj Patil for Respondent Nos.4 to 10
Grampanchayat, Tamdalge through Gramsevak, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur and ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the validity of a no confidence motion passed against the petitioner Sarpanch and the order of the Additional Collector dismissing his objections.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the no confidence motion passed on 29 August 2012 and the order of the Additional Collector dated 2 November 2012.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the no confidence motion was invalid because he had already tendered his resignation on 17 August 2012 and there was non-compliance with Rule 17 of the Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1959.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Collector dismissed the petitioner's application on 2 November 2012, rejecting his objections.
Issues
Whether a no confidence motion against a Sarpanch can be validly passed after the Sarpanch has tendered his resignation but before the resignation is approved by the Panchayat Samiti.
Whether the requirement of a proposer and seconder under Rule 17 of the Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1959 applies to a no confidence motion under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that since he had resigned on 17 August 2012, the no confidence motion should not have been taken up.
The petitioner also argued that there was no proposer or seconder for the motion, violating Rule 17 of the Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1959.
The respondents argued that the resignation was not effective until approved by the Panchayat Samiti, and the no confidence motion was validly passed.
Ratio Decidendi
A resignation tendered by a Sarpanch is not effective until it is approved by the Panchayat Samiti. Therefore, the Sarpanch continues to hold office until such approval, and a no confidence motion can be validly passed against him during that period. Additionally, the requirement of a proposer and seconder under Rule 17 of the Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1959 does not apply to no confidence motions under Section 35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner was the Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat, Tamdalge. The petitioner tendered his resignation from the post of Sarpanch on 17 August 2012...
In the meantime, i.e., 23 August 2012, more than one-third total number of members of the Panchayat requisitioned a meeting to consider motion of no confidence against the petitioner.
Ms Thorat, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submitted that she would not press the issue of violation of Rule 17 of the said Rules, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in case of Shri Tatyasaheb R. Kale...
Procedural History
The petitioner tendered resignation on 17 August 2012. On 23 August 2012, members requisitioned a no confidence meeting. The Tehsildar convened a special meeting on 29 August 2012, where the no confidence motion was passed. The petitioner filed an application before the Additional Collector on 3 September 2012, which was dismissed on 2 November 2012. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958: Section 35(1), Section 35(2)
- Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, 1959: Rule 17
