Allowed

Madhukar Kanu Gaikwar and Ors. v. the Additional District Collector and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Apr 2018WP/3327/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order allowing an appeal against a motion of no confidence against an Up-Sarpanch. The Court held that the Additional Collector erred in holding the motion unobjectable merely because the Sarpanch was on leave, reaffirming that an elected Up-Sarpanch remains accountable to the Panchayat members.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 8th February, 2017 set aside. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs.

Madhukar Kanu Gaikwar and Ors. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 914-wp-3327.17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3327 OF 2017

¶4

Madhukar Kanu Gaikar and others … Petitioners Versus

¶5

The Additional District Collector and others … Respondents

¶6

Mr. C. G. Gavnekar a/w Suhan S. Deokar for Petitioners. Mrs. Geeta Golatkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. None for Respondent No.5.

¶7

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 27^th APRIL, 2018

¶8

P. C.:

¶9

Heard Mr. Gavnekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and

¶10

Mrs. Geeta Golatkar, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

¶11

On 17^th April, 2017 this Court made the following order:-

¶12

“ Not on board. At the request of Mr. Gavnekar, taken up in the production board.

¶13

2. Heard Mr. Gavnekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Rayrikar, learned A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶14

3. Mr. Gavnekar states that respondent No.5, UpaSarpanch is the only contesting respondent.

1 of 5

Shridhar Sutar

2 914-wp-3327.17.doc

4. In view thereof, issue notice to the 5^th respondent, returnable on 4^th May, 2017. Notice to indicate that subject to the time constraint and convenience of the Court, petition will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Notice shall further indicate that despite service if respondent No.5 does not appear, the Court will proceed to decide the petition on it's own merits. ”

¶19

On 15^th June, 2017, this Court recorded that Respondent No.5 has been duly served. In fact, Mrs. Ranjana Todankar even appeared on behalf of Respondent No.5.

¶20

On 26^th July, 2017 this Court recorded the Petitioners' statement that no relief is claimed against Respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 7.

¶21

Since, in the order dated 17^th April, 2017, it was made clear that this petition will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission and further that despite service Respondent No.5 does not appear, this Court will proceed to decide the petition on its own merits, it is only appropriate that this petition is disposed of on merits.

2 of 5

Shridhar Sutar

3 914-wp-3327.17.doc

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 8^th February, 2017 (Exhibit- “H”) made by Additional Collector, Raigad, allowing the appeal instituted by Respondent No.5 against the motion of no confidence passed on 26^th October, 2016 expressing no confidence against Respondent No.5, who was Up-Sarpanch of the village Panchayat of Respondent No.4 Kon, Adivali, Taluka Panvel.

¶26

Record indicates that on 26^th October, 2016 a motion of no confidence was passed against both the Sarpanch as well as UpSarpanch. Out of 11 members of the Panchayat, 9 members expressed no confidence against the Sarpanch as well as UpSarpanch.

¶27

The Sarpanch respecting democratic traditions, has chosen not to question the motion of no confidence. However, the UpSarpanch – Respondent No.5 instituted an appeal under Section 35 (3B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (the said Act) before the Additional Collector, Raigad who by the impugned order dated 8^th February, 2017 has set aside the motion insofar as the Up-Sarpanch – Respondent No.5 is concerned.

3 of 5

Shridhar Sutar

4 914-wp-3327.17.doc

The Additional Collector, in the impugned order has reasoned that since, the Sarpanch had never proceeded on any leave, the Up-Sarpanch-Respondent No.5 had no occasion to function as the Sarpanch. In this view of the matter, there was no question of expressing any want of confidence in the Up-Sarpanch – Respondent No.5, since, none of the members had any occasion

¶32

to see or experience the functioning of the Up-Sarpanch – Respondent No.5 as the Sarpanch of the Panchayat.

¶33

From the perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Additional Collector has not found fault with any of the procedural requirements with regard to the motion of no confidence. Only ground on which the motion has been interfered is the aforesaid ground. Such a ground is totally untenable and unsustainable. Such a ground betrays the understanding of the democratic functioning of the Panchayat which are basic units of local self government.

¶34

The position of Up-Sarpanch is an elected post. An incumbent to this post can continue in such a post as long as he/she enjoys the confidence of the members of the Panchayat. In

4 of 5

Shridhar Sutar

5 914-wp-3327.17.doc

this case, 9 out of 11 members have overwhelmingly expressed no confidence with the Up-Sarpanch – Respondent No.5. On the spacious plea or on the basis of the untenable reasoning of the Additional Collector, the Respondent No.5 cannot cling to the post of Up-Sarpanch when 9 out of 11 members have lost their confidence in her. The motion of no confidence was overwhelmingly supported by 9 out of the 11 members of Panchayat. The Additional Collector has completely misconstrued the interim order made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6083 of 2015. The interim order does not even remotely endorses the reasoning of the Additional Collector.

¶39

For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order dated 8^th February, 2017 is set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs.

¶40

( M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶41

5 of 5

¶42

Shridhar Sutar

Madhukar Kanu Gaikwar and Ors. v. the Additional District Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhukar Kanu Gaikwar and Ors. v. the Additional District Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Damu Ganpat Wadhane

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Ramchandra Yadavrao Parekar

The State of Maharashtra Vs Tukaram Krishna Jadhav

Smt. Asha Shantaram Kolaskar Vs Shri. Gurunath Bhagwan Kumbhar and Ors.

Prakash Tejumal Aswani Vs the Chairman / Secretary, Bobby Pathak Avanue, Chs Ltd. and Anr.

Sunil Yashwant Rokade Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.