Bombay High Court
Sau. Salita Jaidev Ganthade vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. District ... on 2 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8740
31.wp.2521.25.jud.doc 1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2521 OF 2025
Petitioner : Sau. Salita Jaidev Ganthade,
Aged about 35 years,
Occu. Socialwork,
R/o. Kairi (Sangam), Tah. & Dist. Bhandara,
Mo. No.7822951196
- Versus -
Respondents : 1. State of Maharashtra,
Through District Collector Bhandara,
R/o Collector Office, Bhandara.
2. Shri Subodh Sidharth Meshram,
Aged about Major, Occu. Up-Sarpanch.
3. Shri Sarang Prabhakar Ghargade,
Aged about Major, Occu. Social Work.
4. Sau. Kanta Manoj Atkari,
Aged about Major, Occu. Social Work.
5. Ku. Kiran Jaibharat Bhure,
Aged about Major, Occu. Social Work.
6. Sau. Sheela Sanjay Titirmare,
Aged about Major, Occu. Social Work.
7. Sau. Priyanka Pankaj Suryawanshi,
Aged about Major, Occu. Social Work.
8. Sau. Suresh Shrawan Atkari,
Aged about Major, Occu. Social Work.
9. Secretary, Gram Panchayat Khaire (Sangam)
Respondent Nos.1 to 9
R/o Gram Panchayat Khairi (Sangam),
Tah. and Dist. Bhandara.
31.wp.2521.25.jud.doc 2/8
10. Tahashildar Bhandara,
R/o Tahasil Office Bhandara, Dist. Bhandara.
11. Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti Bhandara,
Tah. and Dist. Bhandara.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. P.D. Ganvir, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Mrunal Naik, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 10.
Mr. N.R. Raut, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 8.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat,
Khairi (Sangam), Tahsil and District Bhandara. The motion of no
confidence came to be passed against the petitioner. The petitioner
challenged the legality of the said motion before the respondent-Collector.
The said challenge came to be rejected vide order dated 28/03/2025
against which the present petition is filed.
03. Brief facts of the case are as under:
i. In the elections of Gram Panchayat, Khairi, the petitioner was
elected as Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. The election
of Sarpanch was direct election in which voters had cast their
votes directly for the post of Sarpanch. The petitioner was
declared elected as Sarpanch on 16/10/2022. The Gram
Panchayat comprises of 8 Members. Out of them, 6 Members
of the Gram Panchayat moved the motion of no confidence
against the petitioner. The Tahsildar issued notice dated
29/11/2024 convening a special meeting of the Gram
Panchayat on 05/12/2024 for considering the no confidence
motion against the petitioner. The motion of no confidence
was carried successfully by all the 7 Members present in the
meeting, who voted in favour of the motion. The motion was
thus unanimously passed. Since the petitioner is a directly
elected Sarpanch, the motion of no confidence is required to
be ratified by the Gram Sabha. The meeting of Gram Sabha
for the said purpose was convened on 24/12/2024. The
motion of no confidence was ratified by the Gram Sabha. Out
of 281 voters, 252 voters voted in support of the motion.
ii. The petitioner raised challenge to the motion of no confidence
by raising a dispute before the Collector as contemplated
under Section 35(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats
Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "Act" for short). The
Collector has decided the said dispute vide order dated
28/03/2025. The dispute raised by the petitioner was
dismissed by the Collector.
04. Mr. P.D. Ganvir, learned Advocate for the petitioner contends
that since the petitioner is a directly elected Sarpanch, the motion of no
confidence is required to be ratified by the Gram Sabha within a period of
15 days from the date on which the motion is passed by the Gram
Panchayat. The learned Advocate has placed reliance on Section 35(3)(b)
of the Act in support of his contention. He contends that the motion of no
confidence was passed by the Gram Panchayat on 05/12/2024 and it is
ratified by the Gram Sabha on 24/12/2024, which is admittedly beyond
the stipulated period of 15 days. He further contends that the Collector
failed to take into consideration this vital aspect of the matter and has
passed the impugned order in utter disregard to the said statutory
provision. He also contends that the provision is mandatory in nature
inasmuch as it states that the motion "shall" be ratified within a period of
15 days. He has placed reliance on Division Bench's judgment of this Court
in the matter of Ganesh Raghunath Samel vs. State of Maharashtra &
others, reported in (2002) 4 Bom CR 425. In the said matter, a special
meeting for considering the motion of no confidence was convened beyond
a period of seven days as contemplated under Section 35(2) of the Act.
Although the motion was successfully carried, this Court has held that
since the meeting was convened beyond the stipulated period of seven
days, no confidence motion was required to be quashed.
05. Per contra, Mrs. Mrunal Naik, learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 10 has placed reliance on
order dated 26/02/2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Subhash & Ors. vs. Surekha Hanumant Bankar & Ors., arising out
of SLP (C) No.1727 of 2021. The said matter was pertaining to Section
35(1A) of the Act, which is now repealed. Section 35(1A) also provided
that a motion of non-confidence once passed by the Gram Panchayat had
to be ratified by the Gram Sabha if the Sarpanch was directly elected.
However, the provision did not stipulate any outer limit for the same. The
State Government had issued guidelines formulating time limit for
ratification of no confidence motion. The motion of no confidence, which
was passed by the Gram Panchayat was ratified by the Gram Sabha,
however, beyond the stipulated period. Interpreting the provision, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Act does not contain any
provision, which contemplates that in the event, motion of no confidence
passed by the Gram Panchayat is not placed for ratification before the
Gram Sabha within the stipulated period, would result in lapsing of the
motion. However, under Section 35(3)(b) of the Act, the period of 15 days
is specified for the purpose of ratification. The judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, therefore, is not directly applicable to the present case.
However, it must be examined as to whether the provision prescribing the
time frame of 15 days is mandatory or directory. In the considered opinion
of this Court, ratification of the motion of no-confidence by the Gram
Sabha is mandatory. However, the time frame within which the ratification
must be done cannot be said to be mandatory. In this regard, it must be
stated that the meeting of Gram Sabha for ratification of motion of no
confidence has to be convened by an Officer appointed by the Collector. In
the event, such Officer does not convene the meeting within the stipulated
period, that by itself will not confer right on the Sarpanch, who has lost
majority support to continue to hold the office.
06. In this regard, Mr. N.R. Raut, learned Advocate for the
respondent Nos.2 to 8 has placed reliance on the Full Bench Decision of
this Court in the matter of Raosaheb Mallapa Magdum and others vs.
Vandana Shivajirao Mane and others, reported in 2019(5) Mh.L.J. 844 and
particularly paragraphs 17 and 18 thereof, which read as under:
"17. Profusion of authorities, as adverted to by us herein
above leads to the inescapable conclusion that the fact that
the Legislature shackles the public authority by imposing a
time frame to discharge its statutory functions which are in
the nature of a public duty unequivocally evinces the
legislative intent to hasten the performance of such
functions. The fact that such functions could not be
performed within the stipulated time frame owing to
myriad reasons such as supervening impossibility or
otherwise owing to negligent inertia, would not ipso facto
invalidate the actions of such authority as the same would
be in teeth with the salutary intendment of the Legislature.
It is inconceivable that the Legislature which on one hand
requires a public authority to discharge its functions
promptly within a stipulated time frame; thus signifying its
underlying importance, would itself envisage an embargo
on the performance of the said functions beyond the said
period of time. Needless to state, if the Legislature intends
such drastic consequences, the same would be palpable
from its express words or by overwhelming evidence of
necessary implication.
18. Thus, we answer the reference by holding that
notwithstanding sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 mandating the
Tahsildar to convene a meeting of the Panchayat within
seven days from the receipt of the notice under sub-section
(1), if for some reasons the Tahsildar is unable to do so or
deliberately refrains from doing so, he may be personally
liable for the wrong committed but that would not mean
that a meeting convened beyond seven days would be
corum non-judice. The decisions taken at the meeting
would be legal and valid."
07. In view of the aforesaid judgment, it needs to be held that the
motion of no confidence, which is successfully carried and also ratified by
majority of voters present in the meeting of Gram Sabha, cannot be set
aside merely on the ground that the motion was not ratified within the
stipulated period of 15 days.
08. For the reasons recorded above, in the considered opinion of
this Court, no case of interference is made out. The petition is devoid of
merits and is liable to be dismissed and, hence, it is dismissed accordingly.
09. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rohit W. Joshi, J.)
*sandesh
Signed by: Mr. Sandesh Waghmare
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/09/2025 18:50:57
