Shri. Raosaheb Mallapa Magdum and Ors. Vs Vadaana Shivajirao Mane and Ors.

¶1

 1 24. WP 7792-17.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 7792 OF 2017

¶4

Raosaheb Mallappa Magdum & Ors.
Vs.

¶5

... Petitioners.

¶6

Vandana Shivajirao Mane and Ors.… Respondents

¶7

Mr. S. S. Patwardhan for petitioners.
Mr. Keshav Jugale i/b Abhijit M. Adagule for respondent no.1.
Mr. A. A. Alaspurkar-AGP for the State-Respondents no. 2 and 4.

¶8

CORAM: ABHAY AHUJA J.
DATE : 19th DECEMBER 2022

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

¶11

of India, petitioners are challenging the order dated 1st July, 2017 passed
by the Collector, Kolhapur in Village Panchayat Dispute No. 27 of 2017
allowing the dispute filed by the respondent no.1 and setting aside the No
Confidence Motion.

¶12

2. The brief facts are that earlier requisition in prescribed format and

¶13

by the prescribed number of members of the village panchayat was served
on the Tahsildar on 12th May, 2017. Since the Tshsildar was was on leave
and resumed duty on 27th May, 2017, on the said day itself he issued
notices to the members of panchayat requiring them to attend the special

¶14

1 of 4

¶15

Nikita Gadgil

¶16

 2 24. WP 7792-17.odt

¶17

meeting to motion on No Confidence on 30th May, 2017.

¶18

3. On 30th May, 2017, the motion of No Confidence was taken up for
consideration; 13 members voted in favour of motion and 3 against. The
motion expressing the want on confidence in respondent no.1, was
accordingly passed on the said date.

¶19

4.By the impugned order dated 1st July, 2017, the Collector set aside
the said motion holding that there was breach of Section 35(2) of the
Maharashtra Village Panchyat Act, 1958 (the “said Act”) and Rule 2(3) of
Bombay Village Panchayat Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence
Motion) Rules, 1975 (the “said Rules”) in as much as meeting to consider
the motion of No Confidence was convened by the Tahsildar beyond the
period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice/requisition.

¶20

5. In view of the conflicting views expressed in different decisions of
this Court, the issue that arose was whether the time limit of 7 days from
the date of receipt of requisition prescribed in Section 35(2) of the said
Act and Rule 2(3) of the said Rules, to convene the meeting to consider
the motion of No Confidence is mandatory or directory.

¶21

2 of 4

¶22

Nikita Gadgil

¶23

 3 24. WP 7792-17.odt

¶24

6.This Court after considering the various provisions of the said Act,
the said Rules, as well as conflicting judgments referred the matter for
consideration by the Full Bench of this Court. A Full Bench of this Court
on 3rd September, 2019, answered the reference by holding that
notwithstanding sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the said Act mandating
the Tahsildar to convene a meeting of the Panchayat within seven days
from the receipt of the notice under sub-section (1), if for some reason the
Tahsildar is unable to do so or deliberately refrains from doing so and
though he may be personally liable for the wrong committed but that
would not mean that a meeting convened beyond seven days would be
corumnon-judice. The Full Bench accordingly held that the decision taken
at the meeting would be legal and valid. Paragraph 18 of the Full Bench
Decision is quoted as under:-

¶25

“18. Thus, we answer the reference by holding that
notwithstanding sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 mandating the
Tahsildar to convene a meeting of the Panchayat within seven
days from the receipt of the notice under sub-section (1), if for
some reasons the Tahsildar is unable to do so or deliberately
refrains from doing so, he may be personally liable for the
wrong committed but that would not mean that a meeting
convened beyond seven days would be corumnon-judice. The
decision taken at the meeting would be legal and valid”

¶26

3 of 4

¶27

Nikita Gadgil

¶28

 4 24. WP 7792-17.odt

¶29

7. Mr. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶30

that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court, the order dated 1st
July, 2017 passed by the Collector in Village Panchayat Dispute No. 27 of
2017, ought to be set aside. He, however, submits that since the term of
the office of the sarpanch having expired and pursuant to stay granted by
this Court on the impugned decision, the order of this Court would be
rendered academic.

¶31

8.Be that as it may, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court
dated 3rd September, 2019 holding that the requisition notice under
Section 35(2) of the said Act and Rule 2(3) of the said Rules to convene a
meeting to consider the motion of No Confidence to be directory, the order
dated 1st July, 2017 of the Collector deserves to be set aside and is hereby
set aside.

¶32

9. Petition stand allowed in the above terms. No costs.

¶33

Digitally signed NIKITAYOGESH by NIKITAYOGESHGADGILDate: GADGIL 2022.12.1916:59:56 +0530

¶34

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶35

4 of 4

¶36

Nikita Gadgil

Shri. Raosaheb Mallapa Magdum and Ors. v. Vadaana Shivajirao Mane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Raosaheb Mallapa Magdum and Ors. v. Vadaana Shivajirao Mane 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

Association of Management of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Association of Management of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Association of Management of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prangya Aditya Panda vs Aditya Ajay Panda

Asha W/O. Vasanta Kajale and Others Vs Union of India Thr. the General Manager Central Railway Cstm Mumbai

Shakuntala Arvind Gokhale and Ors. Vs Sandhya Chintamani Gokhale and Ors.