PADMAKAR MANOHARRAO UGILE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by filing the present petition initially assailed the motion of no confidence moved against the petitioner. This Court under order dated 03rd September, 2019 directed that the no confidence motion may proceed further. In case the no confidence motion succeeds against the petitioner, the same shall not take effect till the next date. The petitioner was also refrained from taking any policy decision till the next date. Interim order was continued. Subsequently, the no confidence motion is passed. The petitioner amended the writ petition and challenged the notice issued by the respondent No. 3 calling special meeting of no confidence motion against the petitioner. The petitioner also challenged the motion of no confidence dated 03.09.2019.

(2.) Miss Talekar, the learned advocate for the petitioner strenuously contends that, there are fifteen members in the Gram Panchayat. Six members had moved the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. Out of six members, three members are disqualified in view of Sec. 10(1-A) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 (for short "Act 1959") on the ground that they have not submitted validity certificates, though have contested the election from reserved category. The learned advocate further contends that, the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 were disqualified by the common order of the Collector. The petitioner challenged the order of the Collector disqualifying the petitioner. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order of disqualification passed by the Collector is set aside. The respondent No. 7 did not challenge the order of the Collector disqualifying him. The disqualification of the respondent No. 7 is intact and has attained finality. The requisition was given by the six persons. The respondent No. 7 had submitted caste validity before the Sub Divisional Officer in the enquiry dated 20.12.2018, but has not filed such certificate with the competent authority within the time provided under Ordinance dated 14.02.2019, nor challenged the order of the Collector before any competent Court.

(3.) The learned counsel further submits that, as the respondent No. 7 was disqualified, he could not have issued notice of no confidence motion against the petitioner. If the respondent No. 7 is removed from the office, then the requisite number of members i. e. 2/3rd majority is not complied and on this count itself the motion of no confidence deserves to fail.