Dismissed¶6

Keshavrao Bhagwanrao Pisal v. the District Collector and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2025WP/12722/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

no confidence motion; up-sarpanch; proposer; seconder; Meeting Rules; Rule 17; Rule 39; directory not mandatory; Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act 1958; Section 35(3)(b); Dispute Application; District Collector Satara; Special Meeting; majority; Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale v. Navnath Tukaram Kakade; 2014 (6) MALJ 804; subordinate legislation; Bombay High Court Circuit Bench Kolhapur; writ petition rejected 2025.

What did the court decide?

The provisions of the Meeting Rules, so far as they require a proposer or seconder, are directory in nature and not mandatory; non-observance of any such rule does not vitiate a no confidence motion which is otherwise validly passed. ¶3

Keshavrao Bhagwanrao Pisal vs the District Collector and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

41-wp-12722-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.12722 of 2024

¶6

Keshavrao Bhagwanrao Pisal ...Petitioner Versus The District Collector, Satara & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Ajit Kenjale with Mr. Suraj Bansode, for the Petitioner. Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State.

¶8

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

¶9

DATED : 25^h AUGUST 2025

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

Petitioner/Up-Sarpanch impugns ‘no confidence motion’ passed against him which has been confirmed by learned District Collector vide impugned order dated 7^th April 2022 in Dispute Application under Section 35(3)(b) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958.

¶12

According to Petitioner, no confidence motion has been passed without following Meeting Rules. Petitioner was not given fair opportunity in dispute before learned Collector. During Special Meeting, there was no proposer or seconder, as such, provisions of

Gaikwad RD

1/3

41-wp-12722-2024.doc

Meeting Rules are violated. Learned Advocate appearing for Petitioner fairly points out that after passing of no confidence motion, fresh election for post of upsarpanch have been held and new upsarpanch is now in-charge of his office.

¶17

Looking to the submissions advanced, it can be observed that limited challenge raised before this Court is regarding violation of the provisions of Meeting Rules as proposal of no confidence motion was not seconded by any member in meeting. Still no confidence motion is declared to be validly passed. It is well settled that provisions of Meeting Rules, so far as requirement of proposer or seconder are directory in nature and non-observance of any such rule would not vitiate no confidence motion, which is otherwise validly passed.

¶18

Reference can be given to law laid down by this Court in case of Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale v. Navnath Tukaram Kakade,¹ wherein in paragraph 14, following observations are made:

¶19

“A provision contained in a subordinate legislation cannot

¶20

1 2014 (6) MALJ, 804.

Gaikwad RD

2/3

41-wp-12722-2024.doc

prevail, if the requirement of the main enactment i.e., the Act has been fulfilled. In such an eventuality, the requirement of the subordinate legislation would have to give way to the Act and hence the requirement of Rule 17 of the matter of proposing and seconding the motion can only be said to be directory. For the same reason Rule 39 which is part of the same Meeting Rules would have no impact on the conclusion that Rule 17 is directory and not mandatory.”

¶25

In light of the aforesaid proposition of law, there is no merit in Petition, particularly, when no confidence motion is passed by majority.

¶26

In result, Writ Petition stands rejected.

¶27

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by RAJU RAJUDATTATRAYA DATTATRAYAGAIKWAD GAIKWAD Date: 2025.09.02 19:22:52 +0530

¶29

Gaikwad RD

¶30

3/3

Keshavrao Bhagwanrao Pisal v. the District Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshavrao Bhagwanrao Pisal v. the District Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd Mudassir Mzuzaffa Khan and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ramchandra Dattatraya Mule vs Kasturabai Bhagwan Badekar Thr Legal Heirs and Ors.

Prakash Vilas Sawant vs Ikbal Burhanuddin Sayyad Thru Power of Attorney Holder Shri Shabbir Ekbal Sayyad

Ravindra Shivaji Wagh and Anr. vs Mahadev Ramhari Malhari and Ors.

Sindhu Sunil Gavali Vs Sunil Madhukar Gavali

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pooja Sandeep Shelar and Others