Bombay High Court

Anita Mahaling Raut vs The Presiding Officer And The ... on 9 September, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:24033

                                        1                        wp10628.2025

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO.10628 OF 2025

              .      ANITA MAHALING RAUT                         .. Petitioner

                               VERSUS

              1.     THE PRESIDING OFFICER
                     & THE TAHASILDAR, PARANDA

              2.     THE GRAM SEVAK,
                     GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ASU

              3.     ROHIDAS SUBHASH BURANGE

              4.     NISHA RAGHUNATH MANE

              5.     KALINDA RAMESH JAGTAP

              6.     SHRAVAN LAXMAN GANGE

              7.     SAVITA MAHADEV HARKAD

              8.     TASLIMA TAHER PATEL

              9.     SHASHIKANT BHIKAJI KHUNE

              10.    GOPABAI PARMESHWAR JADHAV

                     Respondent Nos.3 to 10 are
                     R/o. Asu, Tq. Paranda,
                     Dist. Dharashiv

              11.    THE COLLECTOR,
                     DHARASHIV                                   .. Respondents
                                               ...
                           Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. V. D. Salunke
                        AGP for Respondent / State: Mr. K. B. Jadhavar
                     Advocate for Respondents No.3, 6 & 9: Mr. S. G. Kawade
                                               ...

                                             CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
                                             DATE     : 09.09.2025
                           2                         wp10628.2025

ORDER:

1. Heard.

2. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges order

dated 19.08.2025, passed in Appeal No.535/2025 by the Collector

upholding the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the petition are

summarized as under.

The petitioner was the Sarpanch of the village Asu,

Taluka Paranda, District Dharashiv. In all 9 members are elected to

the panchayat in the elections held in the year 2021 and the

petitioner was elected as Sarpanch amongst 9 members. Notice of

no confidence motion was moved by the respondents no.2 to 10,

who are the members of the village panchayat before the Tahsildar,

Paranda on 16.06.2025 at 05:35 p.m. seeking to move a no

confidence motion. On the basis of the motion, the Tahsildar issued

notice of meeting on 16.06.2025 informing that the meeting to

discuss the no confidence motion is fixed on 20.06.2025 in the

office of the village panchayat at 11:00 a.m. The no confidence

motion was carried out on the stipulated date and the petitioner

was not present for the meeting of no confidence motion and the

same was carried out by the remaining 8 members against the

petitioner. The petitioner challenged the motion of no-confidence 3 wp10628.2025

before the Collector by submitting that the notice of meeting dated

20.06.2025 was not served upon her. It is submitted that the notice

of no confidence motion was not lawfully served upon the petitioner

and under pressure of interested members, the panchanama was

drawn showing that the house of the petitioner was closed and,

therefore, notice was affixed on the door of her house on

17.06.2025. It is submitted that the panchanama is signed by 2

members out of respondents no.3 to 10 and the family members of

other respondents. There is no independent panch for the

panchanama. It is submitted that the panchanama was prepared

for the same without there being actual notice being served or

admitted to be served. It is also submitted that on the next date, i.e.

on 18.06.2025, the notice was tried to be served on the petitioner

and she refused to accept the notice and, as such, report was

prepared by the Gramsevak. It is submitted that no panchanama is

prepared to show that notice is refused to be accepted. In the

appeal filed before the Collector under Section 35 of the

Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, the Collector on consideration

of the material and submissions, dismissed the appeal. The same is

challenged herein.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Collector failed to appreciate that there is non compliance of the 4 wp10628.2025

Maharashtra Village Panchayat (No Confidence Motion) Rules,

1975, more particularly Rule 7. He relies upon the order passed by

this court in the cases of Manoj Ghanshyamdas Bansode Vs.

Presiding Officer / Tahsildar, Dhamangaon Rly. And others, (2019)

2 Bom CR 249, so also, Vishal Shrikirishna Hole Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others, 2014 (1) Bom. C. R. 466, so also,

Shivkant Haribhau Bangar Vs. Gramsevak and others, 2010 (4)

Bom. C. R. 191 to contend that in absence of valid notice being

served on the Sarpanch, the no confidence motion carried out

would be liable to be set aside being illegal.

5. The learned counsel submits that the service of notice

is in contravention to the Rules, as such, there is no effective

service on the petitioner and that there is violation of the meeting

rules and that the no confidence motion is rendered illegal. As

such, the motion moved against the petitioner be set aside and the

impugned order also be set aside.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has

submitted that the motion is carried out by all remaining members

i.e. 8 out of 9 and the petitioner has deliberately remained absent,

fully knowing that not a single member is in her support. It is

submitted that all attempts to serve the petitioner has failed i.e. on

17.06.2025, when the notice of meeting was attempted to be 5 wp10628.2025

served, the petitioner nor any adult member were present in the

house as such the notice was affixed on the door and the

panchanama was drawn. Thereafter, on the next date i.e. on

18.06.2025 when an attempt was made to serve the notice upon

the petitioner she has not accepted the same. Accordingly, the

Gramsevak has prepared a report of non-acceptance of notice. All

attempts were made by the petitioner to avoid the service of notice

of meeting and, as such, in a democratic set up, the writ court

should not come to the aid of the petitioner when the motion is

passed out by all the remaining members i.e. 8 out of 9. The

meeting was called only for the purpose of no confidence motion

and that it is passed with all remaining members in favour of the

no confidence motion. It is submitted that the writ petition be

dismissed.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, it is required

to be noted that the notice to hold the meeting for no confidence

motion was issued by the Tahsildar on 16.06.2025 and attempt

was made to serve the notice on the petitioner on 17.06.2025.

However, the door of the house of the petitioner was locked, so also,

no adult member was present in the house, as such, the notice was

affixed on the door of the house of the petitioner and panchanama

was drawn. Photograph of the notice affixed on door is also taken.

6 wp10628.2025

Panchanama is drawn on 17.06.2025 that the house of the

petitioner was locked and there was no other adult member was

present in house and the notice was affixed on the door. Similarly,

on 18.06.2025, when the petitioner was available in the village that

the mahsul sevak (Gram Sevak) had gone to the petitioner to serve

the notice of meeting. However, she refused to accept the notice

and the same is reflected in the report of the gram sevak. Although,

the petitioner was aware of the meeting, the petitioner has not

remained present for the same.

8. Reliance placed by the learned counsel particularly on

the Judgment of the Vishal Shrikirishna Hole (supra), in

paragraph no.5, wherein it is observed that notice is to be served

personally on the Sarpanch and if he is not found then on the adult

male member of the family and if the adult member of the family is

not found or refuses to accept notice then it is to be affixed on the

conspicuous portion of his house in the presence of witnesses. The

phrase used in Rule 7 is if none of the aforesaid modes of serving

notice is feasible then the notice is to be fixed in presence of two

panch witnesses on the conspicuous part of the house in which the

member last resided. Rule 7 unambiguously expresses that it is

obligatory on the Tahsildar to adopt first two modes to serve on 7 wp10628.2025

the member. Rule 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meetings)

Rules, is quoted below for ready reference:

""Every notice under these rules shall, if practicable, be served personally by delivering or tendering it to the member to whom it is addressed or such person is not found, by giving or tendering it to an adult male member of his family who is residing with him. If there is no such person to whom notice can be given or tendered or where the member, or as the case may be, in his absence such adult male member, is present but refuses to accept the notice, it shall be served by affixing it, in the presence of two witnesses, on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the member ordinarily resides. If none of the aforesaid modes of serving notice is feasible, the notice shall be affixed, in the presence of two witnesses, on some conspicuous part of the house in which the member is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain."

9. In the instant case, an attempt was made to serve the

notice upon the petitioner, however, the door was locked and that

no adult member was present in the house, as such, notice was

affixed on the door of the house, photograph of the same is

produced and the panchanama is drawn of the notice being affixed.

It is also pertinent to note that on the second date i.e. on

18.06.2025, another attempt was made by the Gram Sevak to

serve the notice on the petitioner but the petitioner has refused to

accept the same mentioning that the notice is already affixed on

the door and the report to that effect is also made.

10. This finding of fact i.e. the petitioner refused to accept

notice and there was proper notice to the petitioner, as recorded by 8 wp10628.2025