Dismissed

Shobha Parasram Wale v. the Addl. Dist. Collector, Ahmedngar and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jan 2013WP/449/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition filed by a Sarpanch challenging the validity of a no-confidence motion passed by the Gram Panchayat. The court held that the motion was passed by the required majority after members expressed views, and the mandatory debate under Rule 2(2) was directory.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No costs.

Shobha Parasram Wale Vs the Addl. Dist… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P. 449.2013

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 449 OF 2013

¶5

Sou. Shobha Parasram Wale V/s The Additional District Collector, Ahmednagar & Ors.

¶6

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 : 16/01/2013.

¶7

Mr. V.V.Tarde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for the State.

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

The Petitioner is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Zole, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶10

The respondents moved a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. A requisition was given to the Tahsildar. Pursuant to the requisition, the Tahsildar convened the special meeting. In the said meeting, seven (7) members voted in favour of motion. The petitioner assailed the said resolution before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector dismissed the Dispute. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶11

2 W.P. 449.2013

¶12

Mr. Tarde, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the motion of no confidence has not been properly passed. The mandatory debate and discussion had not taken place in the meeting. No proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to put-forth his stand on the allegations made. The learned counsel further contends that even Rule 2 (2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch No Confidence Rules [ For short, ' said Rules ' ] have not been followed.

¶13

Mr. Pulkundwar, the learned A.G.P. supports the order.

¶14

The Gram Panchayat consists of nine (9) members. Seven (7) members voted in favour of the motion. The motion is passed by 3/4th majority.

¶15

From the perusal of the proceedings, it is manifest that the members were called upon to express their views on the motion. The petitioner was also asked to speak but he did not express any views. Other members have debated on the motion and the same has also been recorded in the proceedings. The provisions of Rule 2 (2) of the said Rules are directory in nature.

¶16

The petitioner has lost confidence of the majority of the house. No illegality appears to have been committed in the proceedings of the no confidence motion.

¶17

3 W.P. 449.2013 8. In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶18

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶19

KNP/W.P. 449.2013

Shobha Parasram Wale v. the Addl. Dist. Collector, Ahmedngar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobha Parasram Wale v. the Addl. Dist. Collector, Ahmedngar 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

Madhukar Baburao Tant Vs Rajabahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd.Ahmednagar

Hanumant Buasaheb Shinde Vs Dilip Nanasaheb Shinde and Ors.

Bhim Bhojilal Choudhary. Vs Babulal Ghashiram Yadav and Others.

Bhagwat Sarangdhar Sadaphal Vs Anusayabai Tatyaba Palande and Ors.

Shankarrao Kisan Chinchane Vs Dargah Hajrat Syed Shah Hamiduddin Samani Masjid and Graveyard, Parbhani and Ors.

Savitabai Sanjay Chhajed Vs Sandeep Bhausaheb Pathak and Ors.