SAU. PRANAYA Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti Nagbhid, District Chandrapur, who have approached this Court to challenge requisitions of motions for no confidence moved by respondent Nos.3 to 7, elected members of the Panchayat Samiti, against the petitioners. This is the second round of litigation between the parties before this Court. According to the petitioners, the requisitions for no confidence motions and the consequent notice dated 26/10/2020 issued by respondent No.1-Collector for convening a special meeting for consideration of no confidence motions scheduled on 11/11/2020, are bad-in-law and unsustainable as they violate section 72(7) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"), as also Rule 2 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Presiding Authorities (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules"). According to the petitioners, the impugned requisitions and notice deserve to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) The facts in brief leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 7 along with one Prafulla Devidas Khaparde were elected as members of the Nagbhid Panchayat Samiti in February, 2017. Thereafter, on 01/01/2020, petitioner No.1 was elected as Chairman and petitioner No.2 was elected as Deputy Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. On 02/07/2020, a requisition was moved for a motion of no confidence against the petitioners. Although, in terms of the statutory requirement, the requisition was to be submitted before respondent No.1-Collector, since he was on visit to Brahmapuri for a meeting, the said requisition was received by respondent No.2-Deputy Collector. On the basis of such requisition received by respondent No.2-Deputy Collector, a notice dated 03 /07/2020 was issued by respondent No.1-Collector for convening a special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on 14/07/2020, for considering the motion of no confidence. It is undisputed that in the meeting held on 14/07/2020, the motion of no confidence was passed against the petitioners, as six members supported the motion of no confidence, thereby satisfying requirement of 2/3rd majority under section 72(1) of the said Act to carry the motion.

(3.) Aggrieved by the passing of the said no confidence motion, the petitioners filed Writ Petition Stamp No.8394 of 2020 before this Court, inter alia, contending that the requisition for convening meeting to consider the motion of no confidence was not submitted before respondent No.1-Collector and since it was received by respondent No.2-Deputy Collector, section 72(2) of the said Act stood violated. It was contended that since the requisition itself was not in terms of the statutory requirement, the consequent holding of the meeting and passing of the no confidence motion was vitiated.