This appeal challenged a no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch. The High Court held that the absence of a proposer and seconder under Rule 17 was a directory matter referred to a Larger Bench, and service of notice was a disputed issue of fact. The appeal was dismissed.
No 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 lpa 175.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2012 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2267 OF 2012
Vijay Ashokrao Kadam .. Appellant Versus The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad and others .. Respondents
Shri K. J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND A. I. S. CHEEMA, JJ. DATE : 20TH MARCH, 2015.
PER COURT :
. Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned counsel for the appellant states that, the motion of no confidence passed against the appellant/Sarpanch is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. According to the learned counsel, as per Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Panchayat (Meeting) Rules, the proposer and seconder is must for any resolution to be passed in special meeting. There was no proposer and seconder to the said resolution. The learned counsel submits that, the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are elected from the reserved category. However, within a period of six months, they have not submitted the validity, as such, they are disqualified as per Sec. 10(1-A) of the Bombay Village Pnchayat Act.
2 lpa 175.12
The learned counsel also submits that, the notice convening the meeting has not been served upon the appellant. The appellant was absent in the meeting. However, the learned Single Judge has failed to consider this aspect.
[ A. I. S. CHEEMA, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/March 15
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch is illegal in the absence of proposer and seconder under Rule 17.
Whether the failure to serve notice upon the appellant invalidates the meeting and the resolution passed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vijay Ashokrao Kadam
The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
others
S. V. Gangapurwala
A. I. S. Cheema
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
