Geeta prakash Palarecha v. Dist. Collector, Raigad- Alibag
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In the result, the petition is dismissed and the rule is
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. In the result, the petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J. N. PATEL, J.)
Judgment
Shri P. B. Kulkarni i/b Shri P. S. Dani, for the petitioner V. A. Sonpal, AGP for the Respondents 1 and 2. CORAM: J. N. PATEL, & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 22nd June, 2009 ORAL ORDER ( Per Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)
Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging no confidence ‘ motion passed in the meeting dated 5/8/22008. The petitioner, the ’ candidate from Nationalist Congress party, was elected as the Chairman of Sudhagad Panchayat Samiti. It is contended that respondent nos. 3 to 5 gave notice of no confidence motion to respondent no.1 on 9th July, 2008 and after receipt of the said notice, the respondent no.1 appointed Respondent no.2 as Authorised officer to conduct the meeting and on 5th August, 2008, and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to defend her, the resolution was passed against her. 2
Respondents, in their affidavi in reply, have specifically mentioned that Notice was properly served on the petitioner about the meeting well in advance. Thereafter, the petitioner had attended the said special meeting of the Panchayat Samiti in which no confidence motion was taken up for discussion and the petitioner was given opportunity to put up her case and thereafter, the members of the committee voted in favour of the no confidence motion. In the said meeting, respondents 3 to 5 have voted against the petitioner. It is further contended that the respondents 1 and 2 have followed the due procedure of law while dealing with the requisition of no confidence motion and have performed functions as laid down in the statute.
The procedure as regards motion of no-confidence against Chairman or Deputy chairman of Panchayat Samit is provided in Section 72 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 and under Section 73 of the said Act, removal of Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Panchayat Samit for misconduct etc. is possible.
It appears from the record that the notice of the special meeting was duly served on the petitioner under Section 72(2) of the said Act and thereafter the metting was held. The petitioner was present at the time of meeting and has participated in the proceeding and also cast her vote against the no-confidence motion. The contention of the petitioner that she was not given an opportunity to defend is false. It appears 3 that the minutes of the meeting were recorded immediately. Thus, the procedure was properly followed by the respondents while passing no- confidence motion as per section 72(3) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. There is no violation of principles of natural justice so, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the procedure followed in conducting the meeting as regards no-confidence motion. No case is made out to set aside and quash the resolution.
Operative part
In the result, the petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
(J. N. PATEL, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the petition is dismissed and the rule is
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 — ss. 72, 72(3).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 22 Jun 2009. The bench was MRIDULA BHATKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.