Bombay High Court
Sau. Pratibha W/O Vinod Ingle And Others vs Additional Collector, Buldhana And ... on 2 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8739
32.wp.2867.25.jud.doc 1/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2867 OF 2025
Petitioners : 1. Sau. Pratibha w/o Vinod Ingle,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ. Household/Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat
Belad.
2. Mayawati Dadarao Ingle,
Aged about years,
Occ. Household/Member of Gram Panchayat, Belad.
3. Sagar Ninaji Sambare,
Aged about years,
Occ. Agriculturist/Member of Gram Panchayat,
Belad.
4. Iccharam Digambar Sambare,
Aged about years,
Occ. Agriculturist/Member of Gram Panchayat,
Belad.
5. Sau. Durga Sunil Sambare,
Aged about years,
Occ. Household/Member of Gram Panchayat, Belad.
6. Sau. Priya Vijay Kate,
Aged about years,
Occ. Household/Member of Gram Panchayat, Belad.
7. Sau. Dipmala Dewanand Ingle,
Aged about years,
Occ. Household/Member of Gram Panchayat, Belad.
8. Sandip Shatraguna Nimbolkar,
Aged about years,
Occ. Agriculturist/Member of Gram Panchayat,
Belad.
32.wp.2867.25.jud.doc 2/11
All petitioners R/o Belad, Tah. Malkapur,
District Buldhana
- Versus -
Respondents : 1. Additional Collector, Buldana,
Districvt Buldana.
2. Gram panchayat, Belad,
Tah. Malkapur, District Buldana,
through its Secretary.
3. Sachin Santosh Sambare,
Aged 35 years, Occu. Agriculturist/Sarpanch of
Belad, Gram Panchayat, R/o Belad, Post Tah.
Malkapur, District Buldana.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. R.D. Karode, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Ms. P.C. Bawankule, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
None for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Tejas Deshpande a/w Mr. Alpesh Deshmukh,
Advocates for Respondent No.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the parties.
02. Respondent No.3 was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat,
Belad, Tahsil Malkapur, District Buldana. In a motion of no confidence
carried against him in the special meeting of Gram Panchayat, Belad held
on 05/09/2024, the petitioners raised a dispute as contemplated under
Section 35(3B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959
(hereinafter referred to as "Act" for short) questioning the validity of the
motion. Vide order dated 06/11/2024, the Collector, Buldana had rejected
the dispute on the ground that all the 8 members, who were present in the
meeting held on 05/09/2024, had cast votes in favour of the motion and
the motion was passed with majority of 8:0. Respondent No.3 had raised a
contention that he was not served with the notice of the meeting. The said
contention was rejected by the Collector stating that copy of the notice of
the meeting of no confidence motion dated 02/09/2024 was served on the
mother of respondent No.3 and a copy thereof was also pasted on
conspicuous part of the residential house of respondent No.3. Respondent
No.3 challenged the order dated 06/11/2024 passed by the Collector
before this Court in Writ Petition No.6834/2024. This Court was pleased
to partly allow the petition vide judgment and order dated 07/03/2025
thereby the order dated 06/11/2024 passed by the Collector was quashed
and the matter was remanded back to the said authority for taking fresh
decision in the dispute.
03. The contention of respondent No.3 was that the notice of no
confidence meeting was served on his mother and her thumb impression
was obtained in lieu of acknowledgment of notice and a copy of the notice
was also affixed on conspicuous part of his house. This Court observed
that there was no attestation of any witness to the alleged thumb
impression of the mother of respondent No.3 and further that in the
panchnama, there was no reference to the act of affixing copy of notice on
the conspicuous part of the house of respondent No.3.
04. After the matter was remanded, respondent No.3 filed his
affidavit disputing receipt of the notice. Respondent No.3 also examined
his mother as a witness, who was also cross-examined. The petitioners
also examined witnesses in support of their contentions that the notice was
served on the mother of respondent No.3 and was also pasted at his
residential house. The dispute came to be allowed by the Collector vide
order dated 28/05/2024. The Collector has observed that if the notice was
served on the mother of respondent No.3, thus there was no need for
pasting a copy of notice on the residential house of respondent No.3. The
Collector has disbelieved the version of the petitioners that notice was
served on the mother of respondent No.3 and was pasted on his residential
house. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Members, who voted in
favour of the motion of no confidence, have filed the present petition
challenging the said order.
05. Mr. R.D. Karode, learned Advocate for the petitioners states
that the motion was carried by majority of 8:0. He states that respondent
No.3 lost confidence of the house and is not entitled to hold the Office.
The learned Advocate contends that the evidence on record is sufficient to
establish that the notice was duly served on the mother of respondent No.3
and also pasted on the residential house. The learned Advocate has placed
reliance on the report dated 02/09/2024 issued by Tahsildar to Talathi
regarding the service of notice and also the panchnama drawn in this
regard. The learned Advocate has also drawn attention to the copy of
notice, which bears thumb impression of the mother of respondent No.3.
06. Per contra, Mr. Tejas Deshpande, learned Advocate for
respondent Nos.3 and Ms. P.C. Bawankule, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 support the impugned order. It
is contended that the Collector has taken into consideration the relevant
material on record to arrive at a finding of fact, which should not be
disturbed in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
07. Perusal of communication/report dated 02/09/2024 issued by
Tahsildar to Talathi will indicate that respondent No.3 was contacted with
a view to effect service of notice of no confidence motion's meeting on him
and that respondent No.3 had instructed to serve the said notice on his
mother. It is stated that as per the instructions of respondent No.3, the
notice was served on his mother and a copy was also pasted on his house.
As against this, perusal of the panchnama will demonstrate that when
respondent No.3 was contacted on his cell phone, he had agreed to receive
the notice, however, he had refused to accept the same and, therefore, the
notice was pasted on his residential house. There is a clear contradiction
between the contents of the panchnama dated 02/09/2024 and report of
the even date. At one place, it is stated that the respondent No.3 refused
to accept the notice and, therefore, it was pasted on his residential house
and in the same breath, at another place, it is stated that respondent No.3
instructed that notice be served on his mother and further that it was
accordingly served on his mother and in addition, a copy was pasted on his
residential house. The view taken by the Collector is, therefore, a possible
view. The Collector has recorded a finding as regards service of notice on
consideration of material on record. Since, the view is a possible view, it
will not be appropriate to interfere with the findings recorded by the
Collector with respect to service of notice, which is essentially a question of
fact.
08. It must also be stated that the acknowledgment on the office
copy of the notice bears alleged thumb impression of the mother of
respondent No.3. The thumb impression is not attested by any person, in
whose presence the service was allegedly effected.
09. The learned Advocate for respondent No.3 has placed reliance
on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Sou. Indubai w/o Vedu
Khairnar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2002(4) ALL
MR 110. In the said case, the notice of no confidence motion was served
and the recipient of notice has allegedly put thump impression in lieu of
acknowledgment. However, the thumb impression and receipt of notice
was disputed. This Court has held that the notice was not attested by the
Tahsildar through whom the notice was purportedly served and there was
no evidence before the Collector that the thumb impression on the
acknowledgment was by the petitioner in the said case, who was disputing
receipt of notice. In such circumstances, the motion of no confidence was
set aside on the ground that service of notice was not proved. The learned
Advocate has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the
matter of Suresh Devidas Choudhari & Ors. vs. Additional Collector
Washim & Ors., reported in 2016(2) All MR 797, wherein it has been held
that non-service of notice for motion of no confidence is a fundamental
defect, which cannot be overlooked merely on the basis of the numbers.
10. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance
on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Shri Chagan Sadashiv
Jadhav & Ors. vs. Smt. Manisha Ramesh Bhandare & Ors., reported in
2018(2) ALL MR 640 and particular paragraph 17 thereof, which reads as
under :
"17. The said aspect has to be looked at another angle. It is
required to be noted that the Motion of No Confidence was to
be passed against the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. The
importance of the said post to the villagers cannot be in
doubt. The Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch can be said to be the
first citizens in so far as the village is concerned. Hence,
when a Motion of No Confidence is moved against a
Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, the same would obviously be
the talk of the entire village and therefore, it is impossible to
believe that the Respondent No.1 in each of the above
Petitions was not aware of the meeting to be held on
05/09/2015 and therefore did not remain present. The same
is also required to be considered in the background of the
fact that the other 14 members out of the total 17 members
have been served on 02/09/2015. When such a large
number of members have been served with the notice, it is
not possible to accept the case of the Sarpanch and Upa-
Sarpanch that they were not aware of the meeting dated
05/09/2015. It is possibly seeing the writing on the wall,
where an overwhelming majority of th members is against
them that the Respondent No.1 in each of the above Petitions
did not choose to remain present and therefore their absence
cannot be attributed to the non-service of notice on them as
is sought to be made out by them."
11. In the said matter, the motion of no confidence was carried
against the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. Since they were not found,
notices were served on other adult members in their respective families.
The contention raised by the petitioner was that first attempt to serve the
notice on the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch should be made and in case the
notice cannot be served on the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, it can be served
on any of their family members. This Court has held that service of notice
on family members of the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch was a substantial
compliance of the provisions and, therefore, the motion of no confidence
could not be set aside for want of notice.
12. The above observations in paragraph 17 are made in this
context. In the present case, a finding of fact is recorded by the Collector
that the notice was not duly served. This is a distinguishing feature
between the two cases.
13. The petitioners have also placed reliance on the judgment
dated 30/08/2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3350/2024 in
the matter pertains to no confidence motion passed under the Maharashtra
Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963,
wherein it has been provided that no confidence meeting is required to be
presided over by the Collector or any Officer authorized by him in that
behalf. The meeting was presided over by the Sub Divisional Officer, and
the Sub Divisional Officer was authorized by the Collector to preside over
the meeting. However, at the relevant time, the Sub Divisional Officer was
on leave and he had not handed over the charge to Tahsildar, who had
32.wp.2867.25.jud.doc 10/11
presided over the meeting of no confidence. The motion passed was
challenged on the ground that the meeting was not presided over by the
competent Officer. This Court was pleased to dismiss the petition on the
ground that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused
on the said count. The said judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the
present case, where the notice of meeting, in which motion is passed, is not
proved to be served. It must be reiterated that the service of notice is held
to be a fundamental requirement of law in the matter of Suresh Choudhari
(supra).
14. For the reasons recorded above, in the considered opinion of
this Court, no case of interference is made out. The writ petition is liable
to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
15. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
16. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioners makes a
request to continue the interim order dated 03/06/2025 passed by this
Court in the present petition for a period of six weeks in order to enable
the petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court. Vide order dated
03/06/2025, the effect and operation of the order dated 28/05/2025
passed by the Collector thereby setting aside the no confidence motion,
was stayed. The learned Advocate states that the motion of no confidence
32.wp.2867.25.jud.doc 11/11
is passed on 05/09/2024 and since then, respondent No.3 is not holding
the Office.
17. The learned Advocate for respondent No.3 opposes the prayer.
18. Interim order dated 03/06/2025 is extended for a period of
four weeks i.e. up to 30th September, 2025.
(Rohit W. Joshi, J.)
*sandesh
Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/09/2025 18:49:58
