Dismissed

Raghunath Rakhmagi Lohakare v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2012WP/149/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an Upsarpanch, challenged a no confidence motion passed against him by the Gram Panchayat. The petition argued procedural violations under Meeting Rules, 1975. The court held non-compliance was directory, not mandatory, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with no costs.

Raghunath Rakhmagi Lohakare Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 W.P. 149.2012

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 149 OF 2012

¶5

Office Notes,Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram,appearances, ................................ Court's orders or CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. directions and Registrar's orders DATE : 09/01/2012.

¶6

Mr. S.G.Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. G.R.Ingole, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. P.S.Pawar, Advocate for Resp.nos. 5 to 8, 10 to 12 and 14 to 18.

¶7

PER COURT :

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶9

The petitioner is Upsarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ranjangaon. The members of the Gram Panchayat moved a motion of no confidence against the present petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the notices were issued. The meeting of the no confidence was held on 13/09/2011. The Gram Panchayat consists of 17 members. 13 members voted in favour of the motion. The petitioner filed Dispute before the Additional Collector, Aurangabad [ For short ‘ Additional Collector ’ ]. The Additional Collector dismissed the said Dispute on 04/11/2011.

¶10

2 W.P. 149.2012

¶11

The petitioner filed Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad [ For short ‘ Commissioner ’ ]. The Commissioner passed order dated 23/12/2011. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶12

Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not served with the notice of no confidence. The subject was also not discussed in the meeting of no confidence scheduled for passing the no confidence motion. The proceeding sheet would substantiate this fact. The learned counsel further contends that debate has to take place on the subject of the no confidence as no debate has taken place. The same vitiates the motion. The learned counsel contends that Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules, 1975 is mandatory. There is no proposer and seconder to the said motion. In view of that, the proceedings of no confidence motion stands vitiated.

¶13

Mr. Pawar, the learned counsel for the respondents supports the order.

¶14

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the orders passed by the authorities and the proceedings.

¶15

3 W.P. 149.2012

¶16

It appears that the Gram Panchayat has 17 members. 13 members remained present in the meeting scheduled for discussing and passing no confidence motion. Those 13 persons have given the notice of no confidence motion. It would appear that the petitioner has lost confidence of the majority of the house. When the subject was taken for discussion, each and every member present there unanimously submitted that they are agreeable to each and every averments made in the notice and now there is no need to discuss further. None of the member had spoken against the motion. Each and every member present there voted in favour of the motion.

¶17

Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shri. Vishwas Pandurang Mokal V/s Group Gram Panchayat, Shihu and others 2011 ( 3 ) ALL MR – 778 to contend that the meeting rules are applicable and the same are also mandatory. No doubt, the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vishwas Pandurang Mokal [ supra ] has held that the Meting Rules of 1975 are applicable in the meeting scheduled for passing no confidence motion. But, the Full Bench of this Court had not decided whether the said Meeting Rules are mandatory or directory in nature. I have in the case of Shaikh Saleem V/s Divisional Commissioner – W.P. No. 293 of 2011 held that Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules are directory and

¶18

4 W.P. 149.2012

¶19

not mandatory. The non compliance of the same would not vitiate the proceedings, more particularly when each and every member present had lost confidence of the petitioner.

¶20

In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶21

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 149.2012

Raghunath Rakhmagi Lohakare v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunath Rakhmagi Lohakare 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramrao Haribhau Atpale Vs Prakash Sampatrao Ghodse and Ors.

Rajendra Sukhdev Wavhal Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Kashirao Kishan Pawade Vs Bhajan Math Wadi Buzurg Thr. Gyanobarao Suryabhan, Died Thr. L.Rs. Raju Bhaurao Pawade and Ors.

Laxman Siddram Battul Thr Power of Att Sachin Laxman Battul Vs Indrajitsing Darshansing Panjabi and Ors.

Pandharinath Lena Ingale Vs Raghunath Namdeo Ghule and Anr.

Shripati Madhav Lomte Vs Raosaheb Madhav Lomote and Ors.