Dismissed

Sou. Arati Ashok Patil v. State of Maharashtra, through Tahasildar and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Aug 2012LPA/158/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order declining interim relief against the appellant's removal as Sarpanch. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that retaining her in office despite losing majority support would defeat the democratic process, while actions taken regarding the vacancy would abide by the final writ petition outcome.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with a direction that actions regarding the Sarpanch post shall abide by the outcome of the writ petition.

Sou. Arati Ashok Patil Vs State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

lpa-158-12.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.158 OF 2012 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6645 OF 2012

¶5

Sou. Arati Ashok Patil ... Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. P.S. Dani i/by Mr. G.H.Keluskar for the appellant. Mr.N.P. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Mr.S.V.Gavand for respondent Nos.3 to 12 and 14.

¶7

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J.. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶8

Tuesday , August 07, 2012

¶9

P .C.

¶10

This appeal is directed against the order dated 20 July 2012 of the learned Single Judge declining to grant the ad-interim relief against removal of the appellant-writ petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of Kegaon (Owada), Taluka Uran, District Raigad.

¶11

At the meeting of the Grampanchayat held on 21 February 2012, having 13 members in all including the appellant, motion of no-confidence was put to vote and the motion was declared to have been passed by 12 votes in favour of the motion and one vote in opposition.

¶12

Aggrieved by the passing of the no-confidence motion, the appellant filed dispute application before the District Collector, Raigad who dismissed the application on 21 May 2012. The appellant challenged the said

1 of 3

SRK

lpa-158-12.sxw

order by filing appeal before the Additional Commission, Konkan Division who dismissed the appeal by order dated 11 July 2012. The said decisions have been challenged in Writ Petition No.6654 of 2012 filed by the present appellant.

¶17

At the hearing of the writ petition, it was contended on behalf of the appellant-petitioner that the resolution passed at the meeting carrying the no-confidence motion was illegal because the procedure prescribed in Rule 17(1)(b) of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959 was not followed.

¶18

The learned Single Judge noted that there was conflict of opinion on the question whether the above provision is mandatory or directory and that the Letters Patent Appeal raising that question, is pending for final hearing.

¶19

The learned Single Judge, however, has granted interim protection to the appellant to the extent that all actions taken after the impugned orders shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

¶20

The appellant-writ petitioner has filed the present appeal praying for stay of the impugned orders.

¶21

The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the meeting for electing the Sarpanch to fill in the vacancy should not be permitted to be conducted till the writ petition is finally decided and that till the final hearing of the writ petition, only the Deputy Sarpanch may be permitted to hold additional charge of the office of the Sarpanch.

2 of 3

SRK

lpa-158-12.sxw

The learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and submitted that when the appellant has lost the confidence of all the other 12 members of the Grampanchayat in the appellant, granting the interim relief as prayed for would keep the Grampanchayat headless for a long period and would defeat the very purpose of providing for an elected Sarpanch.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find considerable substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that when the appellant has lost the confidence of all the other 12 members of the Grampanchayat out of total strength of 13 members, granting the interim relief would defeat the democratic process. We see no justification to keep the office of Sarpanch vacant merely because the writ petition raises question of law about the nature of the procedure prescribed in Rule 17(1)(b) of the Bombay Village Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959.

¶27

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with a clarification already made by the learned Single Judge that all the actions relating to filing of the post of Sarpanch on account of the impugned resolution passed at the meeting of the Grampanchayat in question on 21 February 2012 will abide by the outcome of this petition.

CHIEF JUSTICE

N.M. JAMDAR, J .

3 of 3

SRK

Sou. Arati Ashok Patil v. State of Maharashtra, through Tahasildar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sou. Arati Ashok Patil v. State of Maharashtra, through Tahasildar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeumont Electric Vs Jsw Ispat Steel Limited and Ispat Energy Limited

Murmansk Shipping Co. Vs Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. and Anr.

M/S. Resources of Aviation Redressal Association Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Mr. Madhukar Chindhu Malkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sou. Arati Ashok Patil Vs State of Maharashtra, through Tahasildar and Ors.

Neptune Marine Pvt. Ltd. Vs Meecon Pvt. Ltd.