Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a no-confidence motion passed against the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Kawalgaon, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded. The petitioners were elected on 13.11.2015 for a five-year term. On 20.02.2017, six out of eleven members submitted a requisition to move a no-confidence motion. The Tahsildar received the requisition and on the same day issued notices to the petitioners, convening a special meeting on 22.02.2017. Neither petitioner nor their supporter attended the meeting, and the motion was passed by a 6:0 vote. The petitioners challenged the motion before the Additional Collector, Nanded, contending that they were not given three clear days' notice as required under Rule 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959, and that notices were improperly served on relatives. The Additional Collector rejected the dispute on 17.04.2017. The petitioners then filed a writ petition before the High Court. The court framed two issues: (I) whether holding a meeting within two days was valid when the law required it to be held within seven days; and (II) whether service on the brother and brother-in-law constituted proper service. On the first issue, the court examined the interplay between the Meetings Rules, 1959 and the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and UpSarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Viswas Pandurang Mokal and others vs. Group Gram Panchayat Shihu and the Division Bench in Hindurao Dnyanu Shirtode vs. State of Maharashtra, the court held that where the 1975 Rules are silent, provisions of the Meetings Rules, 1959 may be applied, but only if there is no corresponding provision in the 1975 Rules. Since the 1975 Rules do not prescribe any specific notice period, the requirement under Rule 4 of the Meetings Rules for three clear days' notice applies only to ordinary meetings and not to no-confidence motion meetings. The court further noted the decision in Mandabai Balnath Rohom vs. Ashok Fakira Chandar, which held that a meeting convened even within one day is not illegal so long as it is within seven days. Accordingly, the special meeting on 22.02.2017 was valid. On the second issue, the court refrained from expressing any opinion, having already upheld the motion on the first ground. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the no-confidence motion was upheld.
Headnote
A) Village Panchayats - No-Confidence Motion - Notice Period - Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and UpSarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, Section 35 of Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act - The 1975 Rules do not prescribe a minimum notice period for convening a special meeting; the only requirement is that the meeting is held within seven days of receipt of the requisition. A meeting convened even within one day is not illegal. Held that the meeting convened on 22.02.2017, two days after the notice on 20.02.2017, was valid and the no-confidence motion passed by 6:0 was properly adopted (Paras 10-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a special meeting for no-confidence motion convened within two days is valid under the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and UpSarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, and whether three clear days' notice is required under Rule 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The special meeting convened on 22.02.2017 was held valid as the 1975 Rules do not prescribe a minimum notice period, and the meeting was held within seven days. The no-confidence motion passed by 6:0 votes was upheld. No opinion was expressed on the issue of proper service.
Law Points
- special meeting for no-confidence motion must be convened within seven days
- no specific notice period required under 1975 Rules
- meeting even within one day is legal
- Rule 4 of Meetings Rules does not apply to no-confidence motion meetings
