Dismissed

Nitesh Laxman Parihar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Mar 2018WP/2863/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner, the Upa Sarpanch, challenged a notice for a meeting to elect the Sarpanch from Panchayat members. Relying on an amended Section 30 mandating direct voter elections, the petitioner argued the notice was invalid. The court held the amendment is prospective and rejected the petition, confirming the notice was valid under Section 43.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nitesh Laxman Parihar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

2863.2018WP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2863 OF 2018

¶5

Nitesh s/o. Laxman Parihar,
Age: 30 years, Occupation: Agri.
R/o. Jawla Bazar, Tq.Aundha-Nagnath,
District : Hingoli. PETITIONER

¶6

 VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶8

2. The Collector, Hingoli Dist. Hingoli.

¶9

3. The Tahsildar/Presiding Officer, Aundha-Nagnath, Tq.Aundha-Nagnath, Dist. Hingoli.

¶10

4. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Jawala-Bazar, Tq.Aundha-Nagnath, Dist. Hingoli

¶11

RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

Mr.R.J.Nirmal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.S.J.Salgare, AGP for the Respondent/State

¶14

...

¶15

CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &

¶16

 S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

¶17

Date: 16.03.2018

¶18

2863.2018WP

¶19

¶20

ORDER: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):

¶21

1]Not on board. On mentioning taken on

¶22

board.

¶23

2]This Petition under Article 226 of

¶24

the Constitution of India takes exception to
the notice dated 12.03.2018 issued by
respondent no.3 for holding the special
meeting for the election of the Sarpanch.

¶25

3]Learned counsel appearing for the

¶26

petitioner submits that the Maharashtra
Village Panchayats Act [for short ‘said Act’]

¶27

has been amended by way of issuance of the
Maharashtra Ordinance No. II of 2018, whereby
Section 30 has been amended, and in the said
Section 30-A-1A has been added. In view of

¶28

the said amendment, the election for the post
of Sarpanch is made direct from the voters of

¶29

the said village. It is submitted that by the
impugned notice, the elected members of the

¶30

2863.2018WP

¶31

¶32

Grampanchayat are called upon to participate
in the meeting which is scheduled to be held
on 17.03.2018 to elect the Sarpanch from the
elected members of the Panchayat. According
to the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, in view of the amendment as
aforesaid, there is now provision for direct

¶33

elections for the post of Sarpanch from
voters, and therefore calling such meeting to
conduct election for the post of Sarpanch

¶34

from the elected members of the Grampanchayat
is not permissible, and is contrary to the
mandate of amended provision of Section 30 of
the said Act.

¶35

4]It is further submitted that it is

¶36

only, in case, the post of Sarpanch and Upa
Sarpanch becomes vacant simultaneously, the

¶37

meeting needs to be conducted for the
election of the post of Sarpanch and Upa
Sarpanch. However, in the present case, the

¶38

2863.2018WP

¶39

¶40

petitioner is holding the post of Upa
Sarpanch, and therefore, the charge of the
post of Sarpanch should have been given to
him instead of conducting elections for the
post of Sarpanch. Therefore, he submits that
the Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶41

5]On the other hand, learned AGP

¶42

appearing for the respondent-State submits

¶43

that the new Amendment would apply
prospectively and not with retrospective
effect. The term of the Jawla-Bazar

¶44

Grampanchayat is for 5 years commencing from
the year 2015, and therefore, the aforesaid
amendment which has been introduced in the
year 2018, cannot be made applicable with
retrospective effect.

¶45

6]We have given careful consideration

¶46

to the submissions of the learned counsel

¶47

appearing for the petitioner, and learned AGP
appearing for the respondent-State. At the

¶48

2863.2018WP

¶49

¶50

outset it would be apt to reproduce herein
below Section 43 of the Maharashtra Village
Panchayats Act which reads thus:

¶51

43. Filling up of vacancies. - (1) Any vacancy of which notice has been given to the [Collector] in the prescribed manner due to the

¶52

disablement, death, resignation, disqualification, [confirmation of no confidence motion,] absence without leave or removal of a Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch ***, shall be filled, by the election of a Sarpanch or UpaSarpanch *** who shall hold office so long as the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch *** in whose place he has been elected, would have been elected, would have held office if the vacancy had not occurred:

¶53

[Provided that, the post of the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, as the case may be, fallen vacant

¶54

2863.2018WP

¶55

¶56

under this sub-section shall be filled in within thirty days from the date of such vacancy.]

¶57

(2) The meeting for the election of a Sarpanch under sub-section (1) shall be convened by the [Collector] in the manner described in subsection (1) of section 33.

¶58

7] In view of the aforesaid provision, in our opinion the impugned notice has been rightly issued by respondent no.3, secondly , there is no provision in the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, which mandates/ contemplates that unless the post of Sarpanch

¶59

and Upa Sarpanch becomes vacant at a time,

¶60

there can not be election for the post of

¶61

Sarpanch or Upa Sarpanch as the case may be.
The aforesaid amendment to Section 30 of the

¶62

said Act would apply prospectively.
Admittedly, the elections of the Village

¶63

2863.2018WP

¶64

¶65

Panchayat Jawla Bazar have been taken place
in the year 2015, and the term of the said
elected members is for 5 years, and
therefore, the provisions of Section 43 of
the said Act, reproduced herein above, shall
govern the elections for the post of Sarpanch
and Upa Sarpanch.

¶66

8]For the reasons afore-stated, we do
not find any substance in the Writ Petition,
hence the Writ Petition stands rejected.

¶67

 [S.M.GAVHANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶68

DDC

Nitesh Laxman Parihar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nitesh Laxman Parihar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Renuka Vijay Mahagavali Vs Vijay Kisan Mahagavali

Nivrutti Laxman Sale Vs State of Maha and Ors.

The State of Mah. Vs Kailas Pradhan and Ors.

Dharba Limbaji Chaure Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kishor Mukundrao Pedgaonkar Vs Mangala Kishor Pedgaonkar and Another

Mangesh Damodharrao Deore Vs Sayyed Istahaq Sayyed Sujad Ali and Others