Dismissed

Shri Janardhan S/O Balakram Kovache v. the Additional Collector,Nagpur and Others

Bombay HC17 Dec 2012WP/6184/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a no-confidence motion passed against him on the ground that it was not properly proposed and seconded under the Rules. The court held that non-compliance with these procedural requirements does not invalidate the motion absent demonstrated prejudice, as previous judgments affirm that such provisions are not mandatory for validity. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shri Janardhan S/O Balakram Kovache Vs the Additional… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp6184.12-orde r

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETN. NO.6184/2012

¶5

Janardhan S/o Balakram Kovache

¶6

-vs-

¶7

The Additional Collector, Nagpur and others

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Shri M. Deshmukh, counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.

¶12

DATE : 17.12.2012.

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The impugned order as well as the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner are challenged by the petitioner on the sole ground that the motion was not proposed and seconded as required by the Rules.

¶15

The no confidence motion cannot be set aside on the ground raised by the petitioner. It is a well settled position of law that the provisions of the Rules, specially the Rules pertaining to the proposing and seconding of the motion are not mandatory in nature. It has been held by this Court in the unreported judgment dated 26/07/2011 in Writ Petition No. 167/2011 , order dated 10/08/2011 in Writ Petition No. 3862/2011 (Ranjeet Wamanrao Rahate v. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and others) , judgment dated 07/09/2011 in Writ Petition No.3623/2011 (Gopal Shankar Dhok v. The Commissioner Nagpurand others) and order dated 01/10/2012 in Writ Petition No.2138/2012 (Ashok Shamrao Thakare v. The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and others) that the no confidence motion cannot fall only on the ground

¶16

wp6184.12-orde r

¶17

2/2

¶18

that the motion was not proposed and seconded. The petitioner has not pointed out the prejudice cause to the petitioner for the non compliance of the Rules. The petitioner has not pleaded prejudice caused to the petitioner by the non observance of the procedure prescribed under the Rules. It appears that the no confidence motion has been passed against the petitioner by all the members of the gram panchayat and only the petitioner had voted against the motion. There is no infirmity in the procedure followed while conducting the special meeting so as to invalidate the proceedings.

¶19

Since there is no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

KHUNTE

Shri Janardhan S/O Balakram Kovache v. the Additional Collector,Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Janardhan S/O Balakram Kovache v. the Additional Collector,Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Amravati Distt. Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Thr. Manager/President Amravati Vs Rameshwar Natthuji Garode and Oths

Ramesh Gopal Chaudhari Vs Arjun S/O Prabhakar Narkhede and Ors.

Smt. Chindhibai W/O Motiram Bimele Vs Duliram S/O Sakharam Birkhede and Anr.

Raja Khanderao Deshmukh (Palshikar) Vs State of Maharashtra,through Its Secretary, Department of Industries, Energy and Labour and 4 Other

Rajesh S/O Nashiket Dongre Vs the Commissioner, State Information Commission and Ors.

M/S Jld Cement Ltd. Thr. Its Auth. Signatory Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.