In a writ petition regarding a dismissed no-confidence motion against a Sarpanch, the bench characterized Rule 2(2) of the relevant Panchayat Rules as directory and rejected the claim that proper proposers and seconds were absent, dismissing the petition.
Writ Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.482 OF 2013
Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.
Court's or Judge's orders
Mr.S.J.Salunke, advocate for the petitioner.
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.
Date : 17.01.2013.
PER COURT :
2
mean that said five persons voted against the motion. The learned counsel further contends that Rule 2(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion Rules, 1975 has not been followed. There are no proposer and seconder for the motion.
(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
Dt.17.01.2013. asp/office/wp483.13
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether non-observance of Rule 2(2) regarding proposer and seconder in a no-confidence motion against a Sarpanch renders the motion invalid.
Whether the recorded proceedings clearly establish that five members voting by raising hands supported the no-confidence motion.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SARPanch of Grampanchayat Kankewadi
STATE REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR
S.V.GANGAPURWALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court