Dismissed

Shri Ramesh Pralhad Tikar v. Additional Collector Buldana and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2013WP/975/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner Sarpanch challenged an order declaring a no confidence motion valid against him, arguing disabled members voted illegally. The Court held that without a Zilla Parishad President's declaration of disability under Section 40(2), such members were entitled to vote and the motion was valid. Writ petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri Ramesh Pralhad Tikar Vs Additional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP975-13

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 975/2013

¶5

(RAMESH PRALHAD TIKAR VERSUS ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BULDANA & OTHERS)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Smt. S.W. Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.V. Bhoyar, A.G.P. for the R-1 & 2. Shri G.G. Mishra, counsel for the R-3. Shri Amol B. Patil, counsel for the R-4 to 9.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 3, 2013.

¶12

By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the Tahsildar on 07.11.2012 declaring that the No Confidence Motion was validly passed against the petitionerSarpanch as also the order passed by the Additional Collector, Buldana on 11.02.2013 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Tahsildar dated 07.11.2012 under Section 35(3) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958.

¶13

The no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner-Sarpanch by more than 2/3^rd majority. The petitioner challenges the order of the Tahsildar on the ground that two members, who attended the special meeting for considering the no confidence motion against the petitioner-Sarpanch were disabled from continuing as members of the panchayat as they had not attended six consecutive meetings of the Gram Panchayat. According to the petitioner, since the two members viz. Gumphabai Solanke and Sanjay Bhattad had ceased to be the members in view of the provisions of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act of 1958, they could not have attended the special meeting and voted in the same. It is the case of the petitioner that if the votes of the two members are excluded, the motion would not be passed against the petitioner by more than 2/3^rd majority.

¶14

WP975-13

¶15

¶16

The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the provisions of Section 40(2) of the Act of 1958 to canvas that the president of the Zilla Parishad had not decided the question in regard to the disability of the two members from continuing to be the members of the panchayat. According to the learned counsel, unless there is a decision by the president of the Zilla Parishad in regard to the disability of the two members from continuing to be the members of the panchayat as required by the provisions of Section 40(2) of the Act of 1958, it cannot be said that the two members were not entitled to attend the special meeting and vote in the same.

¶17

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the provisions of the Act of 1958, it appears that the two members could not have been disabled from continuing to be the members of the panchayat unless the president of the Zilla Parishad declared so. It is not the case of the petitioner that there was a declaration by the president of the Zilla Parishad as required by the provisions of Section 40(2) of Act of 1958 that the two members were disabled from continuing to be the members of the panchayat. If that be so, it cannot be said that the two members were not entitled to attend the special meeting and vote in the same as they ceased to be the members of the panchayat.

¶18

Since there is no merit in the only ground raised by the petitioner for challenging the impugned orders, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶19

JUDGE

¶20

APTE

Shri Ramesh Pralhad Tikar v. Additional Collector Buldana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri Ramesh Pralhad Tikar v. Additional Collector Buldana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avinash Namdeo Fad Vs Shashikala Namdeo Fad and Another

Satish S/O Hansraj Patel and Others Vs Subhash S/O Kanhaiyalal Bakliwal and Another

Lata Tulshiramji Pranjale Vs the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Amravati Division and Others

Social Welfare Officer, Zp, Buldana Vs the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, and Ors.

Smt. Pushpa Bhanudas Ankatwar and Ors. Vs Smt. Chandrabai Wd/O Nanaji Tatewar and Ors.

Shiv Vaibhav, Wardha (Regd. Public Trust) and Another Vs Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University Thr. Registrar and Another