Bombay High Court
Sau. Mayavati Rahul Sadar vs The Tahsildar, Patur And Others on 12 April, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
936-WP-2247-17 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2247 OF 2017
Mayavati Rahul Sadar
Aged about 47 years,
Occ. Household/Sarpanch
Gram Panchayat, Chatari
R/o Charati Post-Chatari
Tal. Patur, Dist. Akola ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Tehsildar, Patur,
Tahsil Office, Patur,
Tah. Patur and Dist. Akola
2. Suresh s/o Motiram Mule
Aged about 40 years, Occ. Cultivator/
Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chatari
3. Rajesh Jayram Kirtane
Aged about 45 years. Occ. Cultivator/
Member, Gram Panchayat, Chatari
4. Kashinath Tulaji Sadar
Aged about 52 years, Occ. Cultivator
Member, Gram Panchayat, Chatari
5. Bhikaji Kisan Kakad
Aged about 35 years,
Occ. Cultivator/Member
Member, Gram Panchayat,
Chatari
Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are
resident of R/o Chatari Post Chatari
Tal-Patur and Dist. Akola
6. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat,
Chatari R/o Chatari Post-Chatari
::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2017 00:29:35 :::
936-WP-2247-17 2/4
Tal. Patur, Dist. Akola ... Respondents.
Shri S. D. Chopde, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A. R. Chutke, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
Shri R. D. Dhande, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI &
A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATE : April 12, 2017
Oral Judgment : (Per A. S. Chandurkar, J.)
By the present writ petition, the petitioner who is the Sarpanch of
Gram Panchayat, Chatari has challenged the notice dated 06/04/2017 issued
by the Tahsildar convening a special meeting for considering the motion of
no-confidence against the petitioner on 13/04/2017.
2. Shri S. D. Chopde, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
initially a motion of no-confidence was sought to be moved against the
petitioner. The meeting in that regard was held on 06/05/2016 and said
motion came to be passed. As the appeal filed by the petitioner was
dismissed, he challenged that order by filing W.P.No.1818/2017. It is
submitted that said writ petition was allowed and the motion was set aside.
He therefore submits that based on the same grounds on the basis of which
the earlier motion was moved, a subsequent motion could not have been
moved. He further submits that as the petitioner was not reinstated on the
post of Sarpanch after the earlier adjudication, issuance of subsequent notice
936-WP-2247-17 3/4
of the special meeting dated 06/04/2017 did not have any legal force as the
petitioner had not taken charge of the post of Sarpanch.
3. Shri R. D. Dhande, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos.2 to 4 on the other hand submitted that the earlier motion of no-
confidence was not carried for technical reasons viz. absence of service of the
notice of the special meeting on the petitioner. According to him, this issue
stands covered by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in
Ramesh vs. Sheshrao (1998) 9 SCC 113 wherein it has been held that if the
earlier motion has not been carried, a subsequent motion could be moved in
such circumstances. He also submitted that while allowing the earlier writ
petition, this Court had directed the petitioner herein to be reinstated on the
post of Sarpanch forthwith. Hence, it could not be said that the petitioner
was not holding the post of Sarpanch.
4. After hearing the respective counsel, we find that the challenge as
raised by the petitioner to the notice of the special meeting cannot succeed.
The earlier no-confidence motion was passed against the petitioner. This
motion was set aside by this Court on the ground that the notice of the
special meeting was not served on the petitioner. The motion was therefore
set aside on technical grounds and it could not be said to be carried. In
Ramesh (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has held that if the earlier
936-WP-2247-17 4/4
motion is held to be ineffective on account of lack of service of notice on the
Sarpanch, it cannot be said that the motion would fall in the category of
motion not moved or not carried. Thus, if the earlier motion is held to be
ineffective, there is no bar under Section 35(3-A) of the Maharashtra Village
Panchayat Act, 1958 to move a fresh motion of no-confidence.
The other ground raised that the impugned notice has been issued
prior to petitioner's reinstatement on the post of Sarpanch also cannot be
accepted. By virtue of order dated 29/03/2017 while allowing the earlier
writ petition, the petitioner was directed to be forthwith reinstated on the
post of Sarpanch. The legal effect of such direction was that immediately
after passing of the said order the petitioner became entitled to hold the post
of Sarpanch. The subsequent notice is issued more than seven days after
passing of the order of reinstatement of the petitioner on the post of
Sarpanch. On the date when the impugned notice was issued, the petitioner
was admittedly the Sarpanch.
5. In view of aforesaid, the challenge as raised to the notice dated
06/04/2017 cannot be succeed. The writ petition is therefore dismissed with
no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Asmita
