Dismissed

Vijaya Rameshwar Sonune v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Apr 2013WP/2745/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition challenging a resolution for a no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch of Veltura Grampanchayat. The court held that the motion was valid as the post was not reserved for women, discussion was impliedly given, and the requisite majority was met.

What did the court decide?

No costs.

Vijaya Rameshwar Sonune Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.2745/13

¶3

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

 WRIT PETITION NO.2745 OF 2013

¶7

Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

Mr.B.S.Kudale, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.N.Kendre, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.
1 to 4.

¶10

Mr.Sachin Deshmukh, advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶11

 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶12

 Date : 04.04.2013.

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Veltura. Respondent No.5 to 10 moved requisition to the Tahsildar for convening a special meeting to discuss no confidence motion against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar convened the special meeting. Seven members were present in the meeting. Six members voted in favour of the motion. The petitioner assailed the said Resolution before the Collector. The Additional Collector, dismissed the dispute. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition.

¶16

Mr.Kudale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the motion of no confidence against the petitioner stands vitiated on following counts :

¶17

¶18

W.P.No.2745/13

¶19

(i) The notice of the said meeting was not served on the petitioner. The signature on the acknowledgment is not that of the petitioner. Because of the non-service of the notice the right of the petitioner to participate in the meeting and to debate on the said motion is lost.

¶20

(ii) As per the Meeting Rules, it is only if the majority of the members request for voting by secret ballot then only the voting has to be taken by secret ballot. In the present case only one member sought voting by secret ballot and still, the voting was held by secret ballot. The same would vitiate the meeting. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Kishore Ramchandra Phalak Vs. Vilas Damodar Mahajan and others" reported in 1997 (3) Mh.L.J. 27.

¶21

(iii) In the meeting no discussion and debate had taken place on the said motion. Directly the motion was put to vote. The same is violative of the mandatory Rule 26 of the Meeting Rules. Nonobservance of the same vitiates the motion. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of "Vijay Ramchandra Katkar Vs. Group Gram Panchayat, Pali and others" reported in 2010 (4) Mh.L.J. 497. (iv) The petitioner is a woman. The post was reserved for SC. The petitioner belongs to SC category and is a woman. In view of proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the Bombay Village

¶22

¶23

W.P.No.2745/13

¶24

Panchayats Act, the motion has to be carried by 3/4th majority. In the present case, it is carried only by 2/3rd majority. The same is illegal.

¶25

Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the Respondent supports the order and submits that the motion has been passed by requisite majority. Opportunity was given to discuss on the subject and none of the members made any grievance that they were not allowed to speak on the subject. The learned counsel contends that when the post is not reserved for woman then the motion of no confidence can be passed by 2/3rd majority. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in a case of "Rohini W/o Sanjay Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" reported 2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 729.

¶26

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the proceedings. The Collector has observed that the notice has been served upon the petitioner by the Talathi in person, when the Talathi was performing his official function. The presumption would be that the official function has been properly performed unless proved otherwise. The Collector has observed that the notice upon the petitioner has been served in person. With regard to the contention that voting has been done by secret ballot and so the same is vitiated can not be accepted. The vote by secret ballot is to ensure free and fair mode of poll. It is only to maintain

¶27

¶28

W.P.No.2745/13

¶29

secrecy of the votes and to respect the demand of the majority of the members. In the present case, one of the member had demanded voting by secret ballot. The same was accepted. The other members who were present in the meeting, have no grievance about the vote by secret ballot. In view of that, only because the voting was conducted by secret ballot would not tantamount to vitiating the motion.

¶30

The motion was put to discussion. The same can be borne out from the proceedings itself. It was observed in the proceedings that opportunity was also given to the Sarpanch to speak but Sarpanch was not present. None of the members had desire to speak against the motion. In view of the above, it can not said that Rule 26 of the Meeting Rules has not been adhered.

¶31

The requirement of 3/4th majority would arise if the twin conditions are satisfied that the post is reserved for woman and the same is held by a woman. In the present, the post was not reserved for woman. In case of "Rohini W/o Sanjay Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" referred supra, I have already held so.

¶32