Bombay High Court: In the present case, petitioner-Sarpanch challenged the notice dated 11-12-2024 of Respondent 2, Tahsildar Paithan, convening the meeting of no confidence motion under Section 35(2) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959 (‘Panchayats Act’). The Division Bench of S.G. Mehare* and Shailesh P. Brahme, JJ., opined that the words “date of election” occurring in 4th proviso to Section 35(3) of the Panchayats Act was situation specific and not person specific, and the immunity granted was qua the post and not qua the person. Thus, the words “date of election” referred to the date of election of first Sarpanch and not the date of election of last elected Sarpanch. The Court thus quashed and set aside the impugned notice dated 11-12-2024 for no confidence motion.
Background
Petitioner was elected from the OBC (Woman) Category as the member of the Village Panchayat in the general elections held on 15-01-2022 and was elected as Sarpanch on 19-07-2023. Before her, Respondent 4 was the Sarpanch and while removing him as a Sarpanch, petitioner was also the member inviting the meeting of no confidence. On 11-12-2024, Respondents 3 to 10 moved a representation to Respondent 2 for convening the meeting of no confidence against petitioner. Petitioner challenged Respondent 2’s notice on the ground that since she did not complete her tenure of two years from the date of her election, no such motion of no confidence shall be moved. Therefore, she contended that Respondent 2’s notice was illegal, incorrect, and against the provisions of law.
Respondents 3 to 11 contended that immunity as provided under 4th proviso to Section 35 of the Panchayats Act could not be available to petitioner as she was not the Sarpanch elected first in time and the immunity was to the post and not to the person. Respondents stated that the earlier Sarpanch held the post for more than two years and then no confidence was brought against him and that the period of two years should be counted from the date of election of Sarpanch/Upa-sarpanch. It was contended that the first Sarpanch was elected long back and therefore, the no confidence motion was legally correct, and the meeting should be convened.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The issue for consideration was “whether the immunity/protection of two years from no confidence motion is to be given qua to the post or the person?”.
The Court referred to 4th proviso of Section 35(2) of the Panchayats Act and opined that the words used in the proviso were unambiguous and that the period of two years should be considered from the date of election of Sarpanch/Upa-sarpanch as was applicable in the present case.
The Court opined that the words “date of election” occurring in 4th proviso to Section 35(3) was situation specific and not person specific, and the immunity granted was qua the post and not qua the person. Thus, it would mean that the words “date of election” was referable to the date of election of first Sarpanch and not the date of election of last elected Sarpanch.
The Court stated that a no confidence motion could not be held for two years from the date of election. The Court referred to Section 30 and stated that as per the said section, the Sarpanch, who should preside over the Panchayat was a person elected by and from amongst the elected members thereof and as per Section 30-1A, the Sarpanch was a ‘person’ elected directly by the voters.
The Court observed that the preamble of the Panchayats Act was that the Village Panchayats were constituted in the State investing such powers by the authority to enable them to function as units of local self-government and of development activities in rural areas, and for certain other matters and the Sarpanch was an executive authority of the government resolutions.
The Court opined that immunity had been granted to every Sarpanch elected during the tenure with a view to ensure the smooth functioning of the Village Panchayat and the purpose was to protect the functioning of the Village Panchayat and consider the welfare of the voters of the Village Panchayat. The Court further opined that the Sarpanch was a post conferred upon a person and therefore, the term ‘Sarpanch’ as well as the post of Sarpanch could not be distinguished as both have identical meanings in common parlance.
The Court stated that if any action was to be taken for misconduct or negligence, then it would be taken against the person who held the post of Sarpanch. The purposive interpretation was a method of interpreting the laws that considered the law’s purpose rather than just its literal meaning and the interpretation was always held in the fulfillment in the object of statute which was the purposive interpretation of statute.
The Court opined that the language of the words used in 4th proviso to Section 35 of the Panchayats Act was unambiguous and the words used did not create doubt or drew two meanings. The words used in the proviso that no such motion of no confidence shall be moved within a period of two years from the date of election of Sarpanch specifically gives the immunity to the Sarpanch elected and there was no scope to draw the inference that such immunity had been granted to the Sarpanch who had been appointed first time. Therefore, immunity was granted to every Sarpanch elected during the tenure of Village Panchayat withstanding his sequence in office.
The Court stated that the proviso did not distinguish the election of the Sarpanch for the first time or subsequent thereto after the no confidence against the Sarpanch preceding to the election of another Sarpanch. The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed and set aside the impugned notice dated 11-12-2024 for no confidence motion.
[Shital Kiran Rajput v. Collector, Writ Petition No. 13685 of 2024, decided on 27-01-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice S.G. Mehare
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: R.V. Gore, Advocate
For the Respondents: S.R. Yadav Lonikar, AGP; A.R. Salve, H.V. Tungar, Advocates
