Dismissed

Muktabai Sopanrao Gadekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 May 2012LPA/66/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This letters patent appeal challenged the maintenance of a no-confidence motion passed by a Grampanchayat where two councillors were disqualified. The bench found that no valid grounds for interference existed and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. The no-confidence motion passed by the Grampanchayat stands maintained.

Muktabai Sopanrao Gadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

lpa66.12

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.66 OF 2012 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.9483 OF 2011

¶7

(Sau Muktabai w/o Sopanrao Gadekar vs. State of Mah. & ors.)

¶8

OfficeNotes,Office Court’s or Judge’s Orders
MemorandaofCoram,
appearances,Court’s
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders.

¶9

Smt.M.A. Kulkarni Advocate for Appellant.
Shri.V.B. Ghatge AGP for Respondent Nos.
1 to 3 and 11.

¶10

....

¶11

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL &
 S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶12

 DATE : 7TH MAY, 2012.

¶13

1. Heard. Learned counsel for the

¶14

Appellant submits that 'no confidence

¶15

motion' passed against the Appellant has

¶16

not been carried out in accordance with

¶17

law. Two of the sitting members of

¶18

Grampanchayat were not entitled to

¶19

participate, as they did not get their

¶20

caste claims validated, therefore, they

¶21

were deemed to have been disqualified.
The learned counsel submits that the

¶22

lpa66.12

¶23

¶24

OfficeNotes,Office Court’s or Judge’s Orders
MemorandaofCoram,
appearances,Court’s
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders.
Appellant did not get opportunity to
defend herself.

¶25

3. Both these issues were considered by
the learned Single Judge in the
proceedings of Writ Petition No.9483 of
2011. No confidence motion was passed
against the Appellant by majority. Six
members have voted against the Appellant.
The Appellant has lost the confidence. In
Letters Patent Appeal, we do not find
that the Appellant has made out any case
for interference. The Letters Patent
Appeal is dismissed.

¶26

[S.B. DESHMUKH,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.]

¶27

asb/MAY12

Muktabai Sopanrao Gadekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muktabai Sopanrao Gadekar v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Abdul Khalil Abdul Rahim Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Keshavrao Begaji Nandre and Ors. Vs Bhagwat Migajirao Wawle and Ors.

Bhanudas Nivruttirao Suraywanshi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Muktabai Sopanrao Gadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Balasaheb Thorat Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vitthal Bajirao Wandekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.