Kalpana Ashok Palaspagar Vs the Collector, Akola and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kalpana Ashok Palaspagar Vs the Collector, Akola and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; writ petition rejected. Operative direction that the interim-stay period be excluded from computation of the concluding six months of the term for holding the no-confidence motion.

Issue for consideration

Whether, on the dates of the no-confidence notice (29.07.2025) and the discussion fixed for 04.08.2025, less than six months remained of the Village Panchayat's term of office, so that the bar under proviso 4 of Section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 prohibited the motion. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the no-confidence notice (29.07.2025) and the date fixed for discussion (04.08.2025) fall before the cut-off of 11.08.2025, the bar on holding a no-confidence motion in the last six months of the term does not apply, and the motion can be held.

Ratio / Principle

Because the term of the earlier body ended on 26.08.2020 and an Administrator was appointed and continued until the newly elected body took charge, the date 26.08.2020 cannot be used; the five-year term must be calculated and counted from the date of the meeting of the Panchayat, i.e., the first meeting held on 11.02.2021, so the term expires on 11.02.2026.

Key takeaways

Computing the preceding six months from the term ending 11.02.2026, the cut-off date is 11.08.2025; after that date a motion of no confidence cannot be moved under Section 35 of the Act.ratio¶¶19
Operative direction: the period during which the stay was in operation shall not be counted towards computing the preceding six months of the completion of the term of office for holding the no-confidence motion.ratio¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 — no-confidence motion against Sarpanch — proviso 4 to Section 35(3) bars a motion when less than six months of the term remain. Held (Division Bench, Nagpur Bench, 19.08.2025): where the outgoing body's term expired on 26.08.2020 and an Administrator, appointed on 27.08.2020, carried on until the newly elected body assumed charge, the five-year term must run from the first meeting of the new Panchayat held on 11.02.2021, expiring on 11.02.2026; the six-month cut-off under Section 35 therefore fell on 11.08.2025. The petitioner's attempt to adopt 26.08.2020 as the commencement date solely to invoke the six-month bar, while relying on the first-meeting date to continue in office, was rejected. Notice of no-confidence dated 29.07.2025 with discussion fixed for 04.08.2025 preceded the cut-off, so the bar did not apply. Writ petition dismissed; the interim-stay period directed to be excluded from computation of the concluding six months. Neutral citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:8184-DB.

2025:BHC-NAG:8184-DB

1 905.wp.4115.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO.4115/2025

Kalpana Ashok Palaspagar Vs. The Collector, Akola and Ors.

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

Mr. N. A. Gawande, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. S. M. Ukey, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.

Mr. A. R. Deshpande and Mr. S. D. Pundkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 7.

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI,JJ. DATED : 19/08/2025.

In the present matter, the petitioner has approached to this Court raising a challenge to ‘no confidence motion’ on the ground that the time period left to complete the term of office of the Village Panchayat is less than six months and there is a prohibition to hold a meeting for motion of no confidence, under Section 35(3) proviso 4 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. 2. During the arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner makes two conflicting arguments, namely, that while considering the period of term of five years as per Section 28 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, the commencing date will be 26.08.2020 in this case, which is the date on which the term of earlier body came to an end to take the benefit of proviso 4 of Section 35(3) of the Act of 1959. Whereas, to hold the office by the petitioner his submission is that the date on which the first meeting was held i.e. on 11.02.2026 shall be considered.

Thus, it is clear that according to the petitioner, for Section 35 of the Act, the relevant date would be

2 905.wp.4115.25

26.08.2020. However, to continue on the post as Sarpanch, the relevant date would be 11.02.2021.

The petitioner by arguing this, wants to take advantage of Section 28(1)(i) of the Act. Section 28(1)(i) says that the term of office of the members elected at a general election or appointed under Sub-Section (3) of Section 10 shall be deemed to commence on the date of the first meeting of the Panchayat and such date shall not be in the case of first meeting after general election, be later than the day immediately following the day of expiry of the term of outgoing members. 5. In the present matter, admittedly, the term of the earlier body came to an end on 26.08.2020 and on 27.08.2020, an Administrator was appointed. The appointment of the Administrator was till the elections are held and the charge is taken by the newly elected body.

In the present matter, the elections were held on 15.01.2021 and the results were declared on 18.01.2021. Whereas, the first meeting was held on 11.02.2021. The petitioner is not disputing the fact about the appointment of the Administrator and it is also not disputed that this appointment was continued till the new body was elected. 7. In the circumstances, the date 26.08.2020 which is the last date of the completion of five years term of the earlier body, cannot be considered for the reason that by appointing an Administrator, the term was extended and in the said circumstances, five years term needs to be calculated and counted from the date of the meeting of the Panchayat. Such meeting of the Panchayat was held on 11.02.2021 and as such, the period of five years would

3 905.wp.4115.25

expire on 11.02.2026. Therefore, if the preceding six months period is calculated, the cut off date will be 11.08.2025 where after motion of no confidence cannot be moved under Section 35 of the said Act.

In the present case, the date of notice for discussion of motion of no confidence is dated 29.07.2025 whereas the date which was fixed for discussion of such motion was 04.08.2025.

In that view of the matter, the bar to hold no confidence motion where the period of less than six months is left for completion of the term of office, will not come in the way to hold the motion of no confidence in this matter.

Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and hence, it is rejected.

The period during which the stay was in operation shall not be calculated for the purpose of computing preceding period of six months of completion of term of office, for holding no confidence motion.

(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

RGurnule.