Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mayavati Rahul Sadar, was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chatari. A no-confidence motion was passed against her on 06/05/2016, but she challenged it in Writ Petition No.1818/2017, which was allowed on the ground that the notice of the special meeting was not served on her. The motion was set aside. Subsequently, the Tehsildar issued a fresh notice dated 06/04/2017 convening a special meeting on 13/04/2017 for another no-confidence motion. The petitioner challenged this notice, arguing that the subsequent motion was based on the same grounds as the earlier one and that she had not been reinstated as Sarpanch after the earlier writ petition. The respondents argued that the earlier motion was set aside on technical grounds, not on merits, and that the Supreme Court in Ramesh vs. Sheshrao (1998) 9 SCC 113 permits a subsequent motion in such circumstances. They also pointed out that the earlier writ petition had directed reinstatement forthwith. The court held that since the earlier motion was set aside on technical grounds (lack of service), it was not carried, and a subsequent motion is permissible. The court also noted that the petitioner was deemed to hold the post due to the reinstatement order. The petition was dismissed, and the special meeting was allowed to proceed.
Headnote
A) Panchayati Raj - No-Confidence Motion - Subsequent Motion - Maharashtra Gram Panchayat Act, 1958 - Sections 35, 36 - The petitioner Sarpanch challenged a notice for a special meeting to consider a no-confidence motion, arguing that a previous motion had been set aside and she had not been reinstated. The court held that since the earlier motion was set aside on technical grounds (lack of service of notice), it was not carried on merits, and a subsequent motion is permissible as per Ramesh vs. Sheshrao (1998) 9 SCC 113. The court also noted that the earlier writ petition had directed reinstatement, so the petitioner was deemed to hold the post. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a subsequent motion of no-confidence can be initiated against a Sarpanch after an earlier motion was set aside on technical grounds, and whether the notice for such subsequent motion is valid when the Sarpanch had not been reinstated.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The notice dated 06/04/2017 for the special meeting to consider the no-confidence motion is upheld.
Law Points
- No-confidence motion
- subsequent motion permissible if earlier motion not carried on merits
- technical ground does not bar fresh motion
- Ramesh vs. Sheshrao (1998) 9 SCC 113 applied
