Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Raviraj Sambhajirao Nimbalkar, was elected as Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Kalnakwadi, Kolhapur. On 21st November 2017, some members issued a notice to the Tahsildar under Section 35(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, seeking a no confidence motion against the petitioner on grounds of arbitrary administration. The Tahsildar issued a notice on 23rd November 2017 convening a meeting on 27th November 2017. The petitioner filed a civil suit challenging the notice, but the suit was dismissed. He then filed a writ petition. The High Court examined the requirements of Section 35(1), which mandates that the notice must be given by the requisite number of members, and the Tahsildar must verify the signatures and give the sarpanch an opportunity to explain the grounds. The court found that the Tahsildar did not verify the signatures and did not give the petitioner an opportunity to explain. The meeting was held without compliance. The court quashed the notice and the proceedings of the no confidence meeting, holding that the statutory requirements are mandatory and non-compliance vitiates the motion.
Headnote
A) Panchayati Raj - No Confidence Motion - Section 35(1) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 - Validity of Notice - The notice issued by the Tahsildar for a no confidence motion must be based on a valid requisition by the requisite number of members, with proper verification of signatures, and the sarpanch must be given an opportunity to explain the grounds before the meeting is convened - Held that the notice in this case was invalid as the Tahsildar did not verify the signatures and did not give the petitioner an opportunity to explain (Paras 10-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice issued by the Tahsildar under Section 35(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 for a no confidence motion against the petitioner was valid and in compliance with the statutory requirements.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notice dated 23rd November 2017 and the proceedings of the no confidence meeting held on 27th November 2017. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- No confidence motion
- Section 35(1) Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act
- 1959
- Mandatory requirement of notice by members
- Verification of signatures
- Opportunity to sarpanch to explain
- Quashing of notice
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 87
Writ Petition No. 2685 of 2018
Mr. Pandit Kasar for Petitioner, Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 11, Mr. Tanaji Mhatugade for Respondent Nos. 3 to 9
Shri Raviraj Sambhajirao Nimbalkar
The Tahsildar, Bhudargad; Grampanchayat Mouje Kalnakwadi; Sau. Padma Jayasingh Mhasvekar; Chandrakant Dinkar Gadekar; Eknath Govind Morbale; Bhimrao Shamrao Gurav; Sau. Rajani Ramesh Kolasakar; Sau. Sunita Dattatraya Warke; Sau. Sarika Digvijay Kumbhar; Sau. Archana Pratap Warke; The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the notice and proceedings of a no confidence motion against the petitioner as Sarpanch.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the notice dated 23rd November 2017 issued by the Tahsildar and the proceedings of the no confidence meeting held on 27th November 2017.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that the notice for no confidence motion was issued without compliance with Section 35(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, as the Tahsildar did not verify the signatures of the members and did not give the petitioner an opportunity to explain the grounds.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 943/2017 which was dismissed.
Issues
Whether the notice issued by the Tahsildar under Section 35(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 was valid.
Whether the Tahsildar was required to verify the signatures of the members before issuing the notice.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to explain the grounds before the meeting was convened.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Tahsildar did not verify the signatures and did not give him an opportunity to explain, violating Section 35(1).
Respondents argued that the notice was valid and the meeting was conducted properly.
Ratio Decidendi
The notice under Section 35(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 must be based on a valid requisition with proper verification of signatures by the Tahsildar, and the sarpanch must be given an opportunity to explain the grounds before the meeting is convened. Non-compliance renders the notice and subsequent proceedings invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Tahsildar did not verify the signatures of the members who had given the notice under Section 35(1) of the said Act.
The learned Tahsildar did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to explain the grounds mentioned in the notice before issuing the notice for calling the meeting.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 943/2017 challenging the notice, which was dismissed. He then filed the present writ petition. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 28th March 2018.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959: 35(1)
