Dismissed

Pramila Vijay Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jul 2019WP/5426/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging the requisition of a unit or removal of a woman Upa-Sarpanch. The Court held that distinct statutory procedures for Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch elections precluded extending Sarpanch-level protections, and the petition failed as elections for the post were already held.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected.

Pramila Vijay Jagtap Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

ISM

¶2

1 25.5426.19 wp.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5426 OF 2019

Pramila Vijay Jagtap

.....Petitioner

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra through .....Respondents Principal Secretary and others

¶10

Mr. Jayendra Khairnar for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Kamlesh Mali i/b Advocate Ashwinikumar R. Kapadnis for respondent tnos. 2,3,5,6,8,9,10,12,14,15,16 Mr. S. L. Babar AGP for the State

¶12

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶13

DATE : JULY 29, 2019.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

The only point which is sought to be canvassed by the learned

¶16

counsel for the petitioner is, the petitioner was elected on the post of

¶17

a counsellor from a seat reserved for a woman category.

¶18

2 Thereafter, she was elected to the post of Upa-Sarpanch and

¶19

no confidence motion came to be passed against her. According to

¶20

2 25.5426.19 wp.doc

¶21

petitioner, since the Statute does not distinguish the post of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, the petitioner is entitled for all such protection as are available to a woman Sarpanch. For the said purpose, he would draw support from the provisions of Section 35(3) third proviso of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act ('the Act' for short) which provides for that in case if office of Sarpanch is reserved for woman and such office is held by woman Sarpanch, motion of no confidence against Sarpanch should be carried only by majority of not less than 3/4^th of the members entitled to sit and vote.

¶22

3 The aforesaid submissions if are appreciated in the light of provisions of Sections 30A-1A, 30, 30-1A of the Act which provides for election of Sarpanch and Section 30A of the Act which provides election of Upa-Sarpanch, the Statute itself provides for two distinct procedures to be adopted in an election of Sarpanch and UpaSarpanch.

¶23

4 Even if presuming what has been stated by the learned

¶24

3 25.5426.19 wp.doc

¶25

counsel for the petitioner that the election as a counsellor so also as Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch was carried prior to amendment of the said Section, still the fact remains that the Statute i.e. Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act does not provide for parity in the matter of protection in case of no confidence motion against Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch.

¶26

5 Plain reading of amended and unamended provisions in categorical terms provide for two distinct procedure for election to the post of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch.

¶27

6 That being so, case of the petitioner that the petitioner being woman Upa-Sarpanch, even though not originally elected from a seat reserved for a woman elected counsellor, is entitled for protection pursuant to provisions of Section 35(3) third proviso is contrary to the scheme of Statue and is liable to be rejected.

¶28

7 There is one more cause for rejection of the petition i.e. elections for the post of Upa-Sarpanch were already held on

25.5426.19 wp.doc

27/04/2019.

8 That being so, no case for interference is made out. Petition fails, rejected.

¶33

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

Pramila Vijay Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramila Vijay Jagtap v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary 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

Rajendra Kumar Upadhyay Vs Mrs. Usha Jhaveri

Ramesh Kadam through Poa Holder and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohd. Aziz Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs Union of India through the Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Sanjay Vasantrao Shinde and Ors. Vs Rajguru Ganpatrao Shinde, through His C.A. Holder and Ors.

Sou. Chandraprabha Devendra Agase Vs Solapur Mahanagarpalika Sarvasadharan Sevakanchi Sahakari Path Sanstha (M) and Ors.

Mr. Bhalchandra S. Mahanad Vs Syndicate Bank