Dismissed

Bapusaheb Ramchandra Gaikwad v. the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2013WP/484/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad held that non-observance of mandatory procedural rules under the Meeting Rules 1959 does not vitiate a No Confidence Motion against a Sarpanch where no member opposed the motion and the summary of reasons was provided in the notice. Dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Bapusaheb Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs the Additional… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P.No.484/13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶3

BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.484 OF 2013.

¶6

Bapusaheb S/o Ramchandra
Gaikwad

¶7

... Petitioner.

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Additional Collector,
Ahmednagar and others. ... Respondents.

¶10

Mr.C.R.Deshpande, advocate holding for
Mrs.Sabahat Kazi, advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.K.Kadam, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State.
Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 to
11.

¶11

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶12

 Date : 17.01.2013.

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

1.Heard.

¶15

2.The petitioner is the Sarpanch of
GrampanchayatKharda,Tq.Jamkhed,

¶16

2 W.P.No.484/13

¶17

Dist.Ahmednagar. The Grampanchayat consists of
17 members. About ten members moved a
requisition with the Tahsildar for convening
special meeting to discuss No Confidence Motion
against the petitioner. The Tahsildar pursuant
to the said requisition convened the special
meeting held on 14.12.2012, No Confidence Motion
was passed by majority of 13 members. None of the
member voted against the motion. The petitioner
assailed the said Resolution before the
Additional Collector. The Additional Collector,
dismissed the dispute. Aggrieved thereby, the
present Writ petition.

¶18

3.Mr.C.R.Deshpande, learned counsel for
the petitioner strenuously contends that none of
the meeting Rules were followed in the said
special meeting. The learned counsel submits that
the Meeting Rules 1959, apply to the meeting of
No Confidence Motion. For the said purpose the
learned counsel relies on the judgment of Full
Bench of this Court in a case of "Shri Viswas
Pandurang Mokal Vs. Group Gram Panchayat Shihu
and others" reported in 2011 (3) ALL MR 778. The

¶19

3 W.P.No.484/13

¶20

learned counsel contends that Rule 17 of the said
Meeting Rules, mandate that the person who has
given notice of motion has to move the motion and
thereafter, the motion has to be seconded. If
permission is not granted for moving the motion,
the motion lapses. According to the learned
counsel as per Rule 18 of the said Meeting Rules,
it is only after the motion has been moved and

¶21

seconded the person presiding has to propose the
question by reading the motion for the
consideration of the panchayat. The learned
counsel further contends that as per Rule 39 of
the said Rules, no motion can be discussed or
noted in the minute book unless and until it has
been properly proposed and seconded. The learned
counsel submits that reading these provisions
conjointly, it would appear that the said
provisions are mandatory and are required to be
adhered. Non-observance of the same would
vitiate the same.

¶22

4.The learned counsel further contends
that in the notice the reasons for moving the No
Confidence Motion are not given. In the say it

¶23

4 W.P.No.484/13

¶24

is contended by the Respondents that along with
the notice a draft Resolution was given in which
the proposer and seconder has been mentioned.
No such draft Resolution was served upon the
petitioner at any point of time. The learned
counsel further submits that though the
petitioner was absent in the meeting, that would
not absolve the Presiding Officer of his
responsibility from adhering to the Rules. The
learned counsel further submits that simply
because majority of the members are against the
petitioner, that would not be sufficient to
scuttle the fundamental Rules. For the said
purpose, learned counsel relies on the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of

¶25

"Shri Ashok Krishakant Mehta Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others" reported in AIR 2001
Bombay 55. The learned counsel further contends
that the Additional Collector, has not considered
these aspects of the case. In light of that the
judgment delivered by the Additional Collector be
set aside.

¶26

5.Mr.Hon, learned counsel and learned

¶27

5 W.P.No.484/13

¶28

Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State support the
order.

¶29

6.With the assistance of the learned
counsel for respective parties, I have gone
through the proceedings as filed with the Writ
Petition, so also the judgment of the Additional
Collector.

¶30

7.The proposition that the Meeting Rules,
1959, apply to the meeting conducted to discuss
the motion of No Confidence need not be debated.
The same is no longer res-integra in view of the
judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in a
case of "Shri Viswas Pandurang Mokal Vs. Group
Gram Panchayat Shihu and others" referred supra.

¶31

8.In the said judgment though the Full
Bench had held that the meeting Rules and more
particularly, Rule 17 of the said Rules apply to
the meeting convened to discuss the motion of No
Confidence, still, the Full Bench did not further
dilate on the aspect about the mandatory or
directory nature of the said Rules.

¶32

6 W.P.No.484/13

¶33

9.In a case of "Shaikh Salim Pasha Khaja
Pasha Vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad
and others" in W.P.No.7293/2011 with W.P.No.
7474/2011 decided on 8.11.2011, I have held that
Rule 17 of the said Meeting Rules is directory.
The absence of proposer or seconder to the said
motion would not vitiate the Resolution or the
meeting.

¶34

10. From the proceedings it appears that
though there are 17 members of the Panchayat only
13 remained present in the meeting and all 13
persons voted in favour of the motion. There was
not a single member who had ventured to oppose
the said motion. The proceedings would show that
these 13 members had expressed their view for
passing the motion of No Confidence.

¶35

11.No doubt, debate and discussion is a
requirement of such a meeting. In the present
case, all the 13 members present unanimously had
submitted their opinion for passing No Confidence
Motion. It would have been another thing if some
of the members wanted to speak against the motion

¶36

7 W.P.No.484/13

¶37

and they were not allowed to speak, in that case
the motion would stand vitiated. However, in the
present case, not a single member had put forth a
contrary view to the motion. It has been
observed as under :

¶38

"-------------------------------------------

¶39

-----------------------------------------------"

¶40

12.In light of that, it can not be said
that the motion stands vitiated.

¶41

13.Regarding the contention of non-supply
of draft of Resolution, it is manifest that same
is not the requirement of any statute or Rule.
In fact, there is no Rule or provision of
submitting a draft Resolution. The proceedings
nowhere also depict the same It is only
contention raised by some of the Respondents
before the Additional Collector. The said draft
Resolution is not on record. It does not appear
that any such draft resolution exists. Be that
as it may, the copy of the requisition and the

¶42

8 W.P.No.484/13

¶43

notice of the special meeting has been served on
the petitioner. The copy of the requisition
states the reason as to why the petitioner has
lost the confidence of the members. The reason
stated is that the petitioner does the work
without taking into confidence all the members.
Even one reason is sufficient for passing the No
Confidence Motion.

¶44

14.The judgment of the Division Bench in a
case of "Shri Ashok Krishakant Mehta Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others" referred supra lays down
that if there is a fundamental defect then the
weight of numbers is not relevant. In that case
there was a suppression of right to speak in the
meeting. The members were not allowed to speak
in the meeting. In the present case, it is not
so. None of the members have made a grievance
that they were not allowed to debate or speak in
the meeting.

¶45

15.As referred supra non-observance of
Rule 17 would not be a fundamental breach. The
said Rule is directory in nature and would not be

¶46

9 W.P.No.484/13

¶47

sufficient to vitiate the motion. Even otherwise
the petitioner has lost the Confidence of
overwhelming majority of the house.

¶48

16.In light of the above, no case for
interference is made out in Writ jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.

¶49

17.The Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶50

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

 (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶52

asp/office/wp484.13

Bapusaheb Ramchandra Gaikwad v. the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapusaheb Ramchandra Gaikwad v. the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar 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

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.

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

Nagorao Manikrao Kanke Vs the Addl. Collector, Nanded and Ors.

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Aditi Harsha Navgire and Ors.

Prashant Venkatrao Reddy Vs Sayyed Pirpasha Rahimsaheb and Ors.