Bombay High Court
Sau. Lata Vitthal Lande vs The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati ... on 14 December, 2023
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 12-8228-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 8228/2023
Sau. Lata Vitthal Lande Vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati
Division, Amravati and others
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. Ram Karode, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. B.M. Lonare, AGP for Respondents No.1 to 3 / State
Mr. N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for Respondent 5 to 11
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 14th DECEMBER, 2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petition questions the order dated
05/12/2023, passed by the Additional Collector,
Buldhana, whereby the challenge to the motion of no
confidence against the present petitioner dated
17/10/2023, which was passed by majority as
required by Section 35(3-a) of the Maharashtra
Village Panchayat Act, has been rejected.
3. Mr. Karode, learned counsel for the
petitioner though raises a ground that the minutes of
the meeting dated 17/10/2023 do not indicate that
the motion was proposed or seconded, however, that
ground is not available to the petitioner in the light of
the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in
Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale Vs. Navnath Tukaram
2 12-8228-2023.odt
Kakde and others 2014 (6) Mh.LJ 804 (para 15).
4. He then invites my attention to the
judgment of this Court in Manoj Ghanshyamdas
Banode vs Presiding Officer / Tahsildar & Ors. 2019
(2) Bom.C.R. 249, which holds that the opportunity
which is to be granted to the person facing no
confidence motion has to be an effective opportunity.
Inviting my attention to the minutes of the resolution
dated 17/10/23 (page 16), it is contended that the
minutes do no record that any effective opportunity
was given to the petitioner considering that as many
as 8 charges were levelled against her as is indicated
by the notice dated 12/10/2023 (page 14). It is
contended by him relying upon Rules 21 to 46 of the
Bombay Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, 1959,
that the minutes, have to record the compliance with
these rules as a democratically elected person, is
sought to be unseated and though Rule 40 of the said
Rules indicates what is to be recorded in the
proceeding book regarding the meeting held, the
same will have to be read, as containing a
requirement of recording the compliance with Rules
21 to 36 also. It is contended that though learned
Full Bench of this Court in Tatyasaheb Kale (supra)
has held that the requirement of demonstrating that
there was a proposer or seconder to the motion was
not mandatory, that would not reflect, upon the
3 12-8228-2023.odt
compliance with the requirement of Rule 36 of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats (Meeting) Rules, as
that would ensure the demonstration of the person
facing the motion of no confidence having been
granted an opportunity which opportunity is
available to such person under Section 35(2) of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act. It is contended
that the minutes of the meeting dated 17/10/2023
(page 16) do not satisfy that a reasonable
opportunity was granted to the petitioner to answer
the charges against her as the minutes recorded,
merely mentions a sweeping statement that an
opportunity of hearing was granted, this was moreso
according to him, as there were 8 different charges
against the petitioner, each of which according to
him was required to be separately discussed and
opportunity to meet out each charge was available to
the petitioner under the mandate of Section 35(2) of
the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act. Since
according to him, the minutes of meeting do not
indicate this having been so done, it is contended
that the very conduct of the meeting stands vitiated.
5. Mr. Kalwaghe, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 5 to 11 while opposing the same also
relies upon Tatyasaheb Kale (supra) to contend that
the adherence to the Rules 21 to 36 of the said Rules,
has to be in substance and not in form. He also relies
4 12-8228-2023.odt
upon Rule 40 of the aforesaid Rules to indicate that
there is no requirement to record the compliance
with Rules 21 to 36 as is spelt out therefrom and,
therefore, what has been recorded in the minutes of
meeting would satisfy the requirement. He also
contends that the rules are directory and not
mandatory, and therefore, even if there is non-
adherence, the same would not affect the result of
the motion of no confidence, the basic mandate of
Sections 35(3) of the said Rules of the majority
having no confidence in the petitioner having been
satisfied.
6. The issue requires consideration,
considering which, issue notice for final disposal,
returnable on 21st December, 2023.
7. Mr. Lonare, learned Assistant Government
Pleader waives notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
8. Mr. Kalwaghe, learned counsel waives
notice for respondent Nos. 5 to 11 and would make a
statement that whether he accepts notice for
respondent No.12.
9. It is not disputed that the charge of the
Sarpanch, who has been disqualified has been
handed over to the Upsarpanch and Grampanchyat is
functioning. It is also contended that the respondent
Nos. 8 to 11, stand disqualified on account of the
5 12-8228-2023.odt
provisions of Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra
Village Panchayat Act, by the order of the Collector,
appeals against which have been dismissed by the
Additional Commissioner. Mr. Kalwaghe, learned
counsel for the respondents contends that they are in
process in filing writ petition. The total strength of
Grampanchayat is 9 persons, including the Sarpanch,
out of which, as of date the petitioner who was the
Sarpanch stands disqualified as well as respondent
Nos.8 to 11, who are Members also stand
disqualified. In that view of the matter, the notice
dated 12/12/2023, calling for a meeting on
15/12/2023 for election to the post of Sarpanch shall
stand stayed till 21st December, 2023.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
MP Deshpande
Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/12/2023 14:25:54
