Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, six members of the Village Panchayat of Wadner, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Collector, Osmanabad, dated 3rd June 2016, which set aside a no-confidence resolution passed against the Up-Sarpanch, Respondent No.3. The Village Panchayat consisted of nine members. On 12th April 2016, the petitioners gave a requisition for a no-confidence motion against the Up-Sarpanch. The Tahsildar issued a notice for a meeting on 20th April 2016. On 19th April 2016, there was an official holiday due to Mahavir Jayanti. The Up-Sarpanch attended the meeting and participated in the discussion. When the resolution was moved, one member requested a secret ballot, which was conducted by the Tahsildar. The resolution was passed by six votes in favor and one against, with two votes declared invalid. The minutes were signed by all nine members. The Up-Sarpanch challenged the resolution before the Collector under Section 35(3B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, on grounds that the notice was not served on him and that the two votes declared invalid were actually valid. The Collector set aside the resolution, holding that the notice was not properly served and that the two votes should have been considered valid, which would have resulted in a tie. The High Court held that the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 35(3B). The Court observed that the requirement of service of notice is directory, and the Up-Sarpanch's participation cured any defect. The decision on validity of votes during a secret ballot is within the domain of the Presiding Officer and cannot be re-examined by the Collector. The minutes signed by all members are strong evidence. The Court set aside the Collector's order and restored the no-confidence resolution.
Headnote
A) Village Panchayat Act - No-Confidence Motion - Section 35(3B) - Jurisdiction of Collector - The Collector, while hearing a challenge under Section 35(3B), cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute his own opinion on the validity of a no-confidence motion if the statutory procedure under Section 35 has been followed. The Collector's role is limited to ensuring that the procedure prescribed by the Act and Rules has been complied with. (Paras 5-7) B) Village Panchayat Act - Service of Notice - Section 35 - The requirement of service of notice of a no-confidence meeting is directory, not mandatory. Even if the notice was not personally served on the Up-Sarpanch, his participation in the meeting and voting cures any defect in service. (Para 5) C) Village Panchayat Act - Secret Ballot - Invalid Votes - Section 35 - The decision on validity of votes during a secret ballot is within the domain of the Presiding Officer (Tahsildar) and cannot be re-examined by the Collector under Section 35(3B). The Collector cannot declare votes as invalid based on his own assessment. (Para 6) D) Village Panchayat Act - Minutes of Meeting - Section 35 - Minutes signed by all members, including the Up-Sarpanch, are strong evidence of the proceedings and cannot be lightly disregarded. The Collector's finding that the minutes were not properly recorded is perverse. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Collector under Section 35(3B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 can set aside a no-confidence resolution passed by the Village Panchayat on grounds of alleged improper service of notice and validity of votes, when the statutory procedure under Section 35 has been complied with.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Collector dated 3rd June 2016, and restored the no-confidence resolution passed on 20th April 2016. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- No-confidence motion
- Secret ballot
- Jurisdiction of Collector
- Section 35(3B) Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act
- 1958
- Service of notice
- Invalid votes
- Minutes of meeting
