Dismissed

Urmila Shashikant Gitte v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC6 Jan 2021WP/110/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Bench dismissed a writ petition assailing a scheduled motion of no confidence against the Chairman of a Panchayat Samiti. The Court held that as disqualification proceedings were pending, the respondents remained legally empowered to continue as members under Section 62(3) of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no case for interference found; no costs awarded.

Urmila Shashikant Gitte Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

929 wp 110-21.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

929 WRIT PETITION NO.110 OF 2021

¶5

URMILA SHASHIKANT GITTE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. J. R. Shah h/f Mr. S. G. Jadhavar GP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: Mr. D.R. Kale Sr. Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Mr. R. N. Dhorde i/b Mr. V.R. Dhorde

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &

¶10

SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 6^th JANUARY , 2021.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

. The motion of no confdence is introduced against the petitioner, Chairman of Panchyat Samiti, Parali-Vaijnath. The meeting to discuss the motion of no confdence is scheduled on 7^th January, 2021. The petitioner has assailed the same.

¶14

Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contends that four members of the Panchyat Samiti stand disqualifed for not attending the three consecutive meetings. According to the learned counsel these four members’ stand disqualifed under Section 62(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchyat Samiti, 1961. The proceedings to

¶15

929 wp 110-21.odt

¶16

¶17

disqualify them, is pending with the Commissioner. If they stand disqualifed by the Commissioner, the same would relate to the original date. In light of that the subject of no confdence of motion should not be taken up in the meeting.

¶18

We have heard learned GP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and learned senior counsel Mr. Dhorde for respondent No.6.

¶19

It appears that the requisition for no confdence motion has been moved on 24^th December, 2020. The petitioner has fled disqualifcation petition against the four persons I.e. respondent Nos.6 to 9 before the Commissioner on 28^th December, 2020. Section 62 (3) of the Act, 1961 is self-explanatory. Sub-section 3 of Section 62, clarifes that until the Commissioner decides the question as to whether the vacancy has occurred in the ofce of the member under Section 62, the member shall not be disabled from continuing to be the member of the Panchyat Samiti. Admittedly, as on the date, these respondent Nos. 6 to 9 are not disqualifed, the ommissioner has not taken any decision as yet on the application seeking their disqualifcation. In light of that, the contention of the petitioner that respondent Nos. 6 to 9 stand disqualifed is inappropriate and incorrect.

¶20

929 wp 110-21.odt

¶21

¶22

Provision of Sub-Section 3 of Section 62 is abundantly clear that these persons would continue to be members until the Commissioner decides the question.

¶23

In light of that, no case for interference. Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶24

(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶25

vsm/-

Urmila Shashikant Gitte v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Shashikant Gitte v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Bhushan Baburao Patil and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Thr Its Registrar Vs Ravindra Keshav Harishachandre Adn Others

Dadarao Vitthalrao Khalage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Buta Baviskar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pramod Dnyandeo Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Asha Govindrao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others