SHILA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) The petitioners were Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch of village Panchayat consisting of eleven members. Seven village panchayat members submitted a notice under Sec. 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958, for no-confidence against both of them on 3/10/2023. They have assigned the reasons for the noconfidence motion in the notice. The Tahsildar issued notice to both the petitioners. The petitioners received the notice. They were present in the meeting dtd. 10/10/2023, specially convened for the noconfidence motion. Both petitioners submitted their say in writing. In the meeting, the resolution of a no-confidence motion was passed against both the petitioners by 3/4th majority. The said resolution was impugned before the District Collector, Jalna. The District Collector confirmed the resolution and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) The petitioners have objected that a notice of no-confidence motion does not mention that it was a notice of no-confidence motion, and the rules under which the said notice was issued were also not mentioned therein. The notice of a no-confidence motion was received two days prior to the meeting; therefore, they did not have sufficient time to prepare. The petitioners have submitted their say on the allegations levelled against them in writing. However, there was no whisper of the discussion on the submissions of the petitioners, and the resolution of a no-confidence motion was mechanically passed. The vehement argument has been advanced that both the petitioners were asked to vote by secret ballot in writing. However, the no-confidence resolution did not reflect that Tahsildar put the subject for discussion in the meeting. Since the intimation was not given to the members, they were unaware of the demand for secret votes by ballots. The resolution was silent about the demand for votes by secret ballots. The Tahsildar, who was presiding over the meeting, did not ask about the voting by secret ballot in the meeting. Hence, members had no occasion to make a demand. No orders were passed on their application asking for the voting by secret ballots. The motion of a noconfidence was not moved in the meeting. There were no proposers and seconders to the subjects. The resolution without proposer and seconder was in violation of the Village Panchayats Meetings Rules 1959 (Rules 1959 for short), particularly Rules 17 and 23. All these points were raised in the appeal filed before the Collector, Jalna. The Collector, Jalna, has merely recorded the points of objection but did not discuss them in the concluding part of his order. The order of the Collector, Jalna, was mechanical and without application of mind. No opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners in the meeting.