Partly allowed

Aabasaheb Manohar Ubale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC28 Oct 2021WP/6277/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the dismissal of an appeal against a No Confidence Motion removing the petitioner from the post of Upa-Sarpanch. The High Court held the impugned order to be non-speaking and remanded the matter to the Collector for a merits-based decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Collector for a fresh decision on merits by 30.11.2021. The vacancy shall not be filled until the Collector's decision.

Aabasaheb Manohar Ubale Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.6277 OF 2021

¶3

Aabasaheb s/o Manohar Ubale,
Age : 39 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Bhend (Kh), Tal. Gevrai,
District Beed

¶4

PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶7

2. The District Collector, Beed

¶8

3. The Tahsildar, Tal. Gevrai, Dist. Beed

¶9

4. The Grampanchayat, Bhend (Kh), Tq. Gevrai, Dist. Beed, through its Gramsevak

¶10

5. Ashwini Shankar Shinde

¶11

6. Alka Kachru Navgire

¶12

7. Digambar Vitthal Kolpe

¶13

8. Kalinda Pandit Kamble

¶14

9. Ashwini Dhaneshwar Khetre

¶15

10. Sunil Maroti Jadhav

¶16

11. Kavita Asahok Bangar

¶17

12. Urmila Pradip Khande

¶18

Respondent Nos.5 to 12 are
R/o Bhend (Kh.), Tq. Gevrai,
District Beed

¶19

RESPONDENTS

¶20

WP6277-2021.odt

¶21

¶22

Mr. Shrikant G. Kawade, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Y.G. Gujrathi, A.G.P. for the respondent/State
Mr. A.S. Jagtap, Advocate for respondent No.4
Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 to 12

¶23

CORAM :MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

¶24

DATE :28.10.2021

¶25

PER COURT:

¶26

Heard both the sides finally. At their request, the matter is
being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

¶27

2.The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal
preferred under Section 35 (3B) of the Maharashtra Gram Panchayat Act,
1958 against `No Confidence Motion’, non-sitting him from the post of
Upa-Sarpanch.

¶28

3.After having heard the learned Advocates of both the sides
and the learned A.G.P., it transpires that several submissions were made
before the learned Collector touching the aspect of validity or otherwise of
the No Confidence Motion. There was a dispute regarding couple of
elected members having failed to furnish caste validity certificates. Even
issue regarding maintainability of appeal was raised. Apart from this, the
issue regarding the petitioner having not been served with the notice of the
meeting was also agitated, which was specifically denied by the

¶29

WP6277-2021.odt

¶30

¶31

respondents. It was also submitted before him that there was no
misconduct on his part and he was not extended an opportunity to put up
his case before the meeting.

¶32

4.Inspite of all such argument of the parties having been
reproduced in the initial part of the impugned order, the learned Collector
has merely declared the decision without indulging in any discussion
touching the merits or otherwise of all these submissions. It is pertinent to
note that he was deciding the appeal and was expected to have undertaken
the exercise in the letter and spirit while passing the order, which is in the
nature of a quasi-judicial order. Only in few lines, he has declared that the
procedure that was followed for passing the no confidence motion was
strictly in accordance with law and that few members had not furnished
caste validity certificate, even without considering its effect on the ultimate
decision as far as the majority by which the motion is supposed to be
passed.

¶33

5.All in all, by no stretch of imagination, the impugned order
can be said to be a speaking order. Suffice for the purpose to refer to the
decision of this Court, touching this aspect, in the case of Kum. Nirmala
Tikana Giripo Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.; 2009(1) ALL MR 91.

¶34

6. In the result, the petition succeeds but only partly. The matter will have to be remanded for the decision by the Collector bearing in mind the observations of this Court in the decision in the case of Kum. Nirmala

¶35

WP6277-2021.odt

¶36

¶37

Tikana Giripo (supra) and the observations made hereinabove.

¶38

7.The Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is
quashed and set aside.

¶39

8.The matter is remitted back to the Collector for decision on
merits in the light of the observations made hereinabove as early as
possible and in any event on or before 30.11.2021. Till then, the vacancy
shall not be filled in.

¶40

9.The parties to appear before the Collector on 08.11.2021 and

¶41

there shall be no need for the Collector to issue any notice to them.

¶42

[MANGESH S. PATIL]
JUDGE

¶43

npj/WP6277-2021.odt

Aabasaheb Manohar Ubale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aabasaheb Manohar Ubale 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baby Saroja Angad Biradar Vs Saraswatibai Angad Biradar

Rajiv Anil Deshmukh and Others Vs the Jalgaon District Central Co. Operative Bank Limited and Others

Anant Vitthal Joshi and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhukar Namdeo Boravake Deceased Thr Lrs Kamal Madhukar Boravake and Another Vs Laxmibai Pandurang Khandagale Deceased Thr Lrs Tulshiram Bapurao Khandagale Deceased

Madhukar Namdeo Boravake Deceased Thr Lrs Kamal Madhukar Boravake Vs Laxmibai Pandurang Khandagale Deceased Thr Lrs Tulshiram Bapurao Khandagale

Madhukar Namdeo Boawake Deceased Lrs and Ors. Vs Laxmibai Pandurang Khandagale Deceased Lrs and Ors.