Dismissed

Nirmala W/O Bhujang Kharat v. the Additional Collector Buldhana and Others

Bombay HC4 Feb 2013WP/588/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition challenging a no confidence motion against a Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that separate discussions were held for charges against each official and the objection regarding late entry of members was an afterthought raised during review proceedings.

What did the court decide?

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

Nirmala W/O Bhujang Kharat Vs the Additional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp588-13.order

¶2

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

¶3

Writ Petition No. 588 of 2013

¶4

Nirmala Bhujang Kharat.

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Addl. Collector, Buldhana and others.

¶7

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

¶8

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶9

Mr. N.B. Kalwaghe, counsel for petitioner. Mr. Ambarish Joshi, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 4 th February, 2013.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the Additional Collector on 16.1.2013, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner and holding that the no confidence motion passed against the petitioner on 11.9.2012 was legal and valid.

¶13

The petitioner had challenged the no confidence motion on two grounds. According to the petitioner, though the non confidence motion was sought to be passed against the Sarpanch as well as Up-Sarpanch and two separate notices were issued to the members, separate discussion in regard to the charges levelled against the Sarpanch and UpSarpanch was not conducted. It is submitted that it was necessary to have the discussion on the charges levelled against the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch separately.

¶14

It is then submitted that though two of the members were not present at the meeting from the very beginning, they were permitted to vote in the meeting in favour of the motion and the said permission to vote has vitiated the proceedings. According to the petitioner, this

¶15

wp588-13.order

¶16

aspect has not been considered by the Additional Collector, though a ground has been raised in this behalf.

¶17

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the impugned order it appears that there is no force in both the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. On a perusal of the minutes of the meeting it is clear that discussion was carried out separately in regard to the separate charges levelled against the Sarpanch and the Up-Sarpanch. After the meeting commenced, the discussion in regard to the charges levelled against the Sarpanch was made. Later on, the allegations levelled against the UpSarpanch were discussed. If that was so, the first submission made on behalf of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

¶18

The other submission made on behalf of the petitioner is an afterthought. On a perusal of the minutes of the meeting, it is clear that an objection in regard to the late entry of two of the members in the special meeting was not raised by the petitioner at all. For the first time, the said objection was raised before the Additional Collector. On a perusal of the minutes of the meeting, it appears that all the members were present in the meeting right from the beginning. The objection appears to be an afterthought and a lame attempt to set aside the no confidence motion which is validly passed against the petitioner by two-third majority.

¶19

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

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

Hirekhan

Nirmala W/O Bhujang Kharat v. the Additional Collector Buldhana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala W/O Bhujang Kharat v. the Additional Collector Buldhana and Others

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

Shaikh Jaffar Shaikh Khadim Vs Kisana S/O Narayan Vanjari and Ors.

Shattarka Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Maryadit Thr. Its Chief Manager Vs Asst. Provident Funds Commissioner

Maheshwari Agro Enterprises, Main Kumbhli, Thr Its Proprietor Pushpak Devchand Khotele Vs Grampanchayat Committee Kumbhli,Thr Its Sarpanch Grampanchayat Kumbhli, Tah Sakoli, Dist Bhandara

Shri Pandurang S/O Samba Varate Vs Shri Ashok S/O Bhaurao Derkar

Narendra S/O Ramaji Jambhulkar Vs Pranali W/O Narendra Jambhulkar

Gajanan S/O Vishnu Shere Vs the Additional Collector, Buldhana and Others