Safiya Malik

The Bombay High Court addressed the validity of a no-confidence motion passed against a village Sarpanch, considering the procedural challenge raised by the petitioner. The matter involved the question of whether the failure to provide a copy of the requisition notice to the Sarpanch rendered the motion invalid. The court examined the statutory provisions and relevant precedents before concluding that the omission did not affect the legality of the motion.

The case arose from the removal of the Sarpanch of Village Kaddhe, Taluka Khed, District Pune, through a no-confidence motion initiated by members of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner, who was serving as the Sarpanch, challenged the motion on the ground that she was not served with a copy of the requisition submitted by one-third of the members to the Tahsildar. She contended that such service was required under Rule 2(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975.

The Gram Panchayat elections for Village Kaddhe were conducted on January 15, 2021, and the petitioner was elected as a member and subsequently chosen as Sarpanch. On January 1, 2024, seven members of the Gram Panchayat submitted a requisition to the Tahsildar, Taluka Junnar, requesting a motion of no-confidence against her. The Tahsildar scheduled a special meeting on January 8, 2024, where the motion was passed with a 7:2 majority, leading to her removal from office.

The petitioner approached the Collector under Section 35(3B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, contesting her removal. Among her objections, she raised concerns about the eligibility of certain members who voted in favor of the motion, citing their alleged failure to submit caste validity certificates as required under Section 10-1A of the Village Panchayat Act. After affidavits were filed by the state government and the concerned members clarifying the status of the caste validity certificates, the petitioner did not press this objection further.

The primary contention before the court was whether the non-service of the requisition notice to the petitioner invalidated the no-confidence motion. The petitioner submitted that the omission deprived her of an opportunity to understand the allegations and prepare a response during the special meeting. She cited Rule 2(2) of the No Confidence Motion Rules, asserting that the Tahsildar was required to serve a copy of the requisition to the Sarpanch, and failure to do so amounted to a violation of mandatory procedural requirements.

The respondents, including the state government and the Gram Panchayat members who supported the motion, contended that the petitioner had been given proper notice of the meeting and was not prevented from defending herself. They submitted that the purpose of a no-confidence motion is to reflect the confidence of the elected members and that non-furnishing of the requisition did not materially affect the validity of the motion.

The court examined Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, and Rule 2 of the No Confidence Motion Rules, 1975. It observed that while Rule 2(2) specifies that the Tahsildar must send a copy of the requisition to the Sarpanch, the broader objective of a no-confidence motion is to assess whether the elected body continues to have confidence in the office-bearer. The court referred to precedents on the subject and noted that procedural rules must be viewed in light of their legislative intent.

The court cited Yamunabai Laxman Chavan v. Sarubai Tukaram Jadhav (2004), stating, "A motion of no-confidence is the ultimate expression by the members of a collective body of their lack of faith in the office-bearer. Unlike disciplinary proceedings, it does not require a detailed inquiry or proof of specific misconduct." It further referred to Arjun Sambhaji Khade v. Mangal Ankush Kharmate (2003), which stated that while procedural rules should be followed, minor deviations do not necessarily invalidate a motion if the fundamental statutory requirements are met.

The court observed, "The provisions of Rule 2(2) must be regarded as directory in nature. The absence of a copy of the requisition does not deprive the Sarpanch of the right to participate in the meeting or defend herself against the motion." Addressing the petitioner's reliance on Indubai Vedu Khairnar v. State of Maharashtra (2003), the court distinguished the facts of the present case, stating that the non-service of the requisition did not prevent the petitioner from attending the meeting or exercising her right to respond to the motion.

The judgment also referred to Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale v. Navnath Tukaram Kakde (2014), in which the Full Bench of the High Court observed, "A no-confidence motion is not a disciplinary proceeding, and any minor procedural defect that does not affect the substantive right of participation does not render the motion invalid." The court stated that the petitioner was aware of the meeting and had participated in the proceedings. Since the motion was passed with the required majority, procedural lapses concerning the service of the requisition notice did not render the motion invalid.

The court further noted, "No case is made out for taking a view different than the one taken in Yamunabai Laxman Chavan which is an authoritative pronouncement of this Court holding that mere defect of non-furnishing of copy of requisition to the Sarpanch under Rule 2(2) of the No Confidence Motion Rules of 1975 does not vitiate the motion of no-confidence." It also stated, "I therefore do not find any valid reason to interfere in the impugned decision of the Collector, who has rightly dismissed the Dispute Application filed by the Petitioner. The motion of no-confidence adopted in the meeting dated 8 January 2024 is perfectly valid. Petition, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs."

After the judgment was pronounced, the petitioner's counsel sought continuation of the ad-interim order passed on October 10, 2024. The court rejected this request, stating, "As observed in paragraph 5 of the judgment, ad-interim order dated 10 October 2024 was passed on account of allegation of ineligibility of Respondent Nos.5, 7 and 9 to participate in the meeting and to vote. The Petitioner has now given up the issue of eligibility of the said Respondents. Therefore, the very reason why ad-interim relief was granted on 10 October 2024 no longer survives. In that view of the matter, request for continuation of ad-interim relief is rejected."

Case Title: Priyanka Abhijeet Deodhare v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Neutral citation: 2025:BHC-AS:9600

Case Number: WP-13110-2024

Bench: Justice Sandeep V. Marne

[Read/Download order]