Kishor Godiram Satuke v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

***  Mr. R. V. Gore h/f Mr. Deepak K Rajput and Mr. C. D. Rajput, for Petitioner.  Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. *** CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 04th AUGUST 2025. P. C. :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

This petition was mentioned in the morning at 10:30 a.m. projecting extreme urgency, for the reason that a meeting is slated today at 02:00 p.m. to consider a no confidence motion moved against the petitioner, who is presently the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dahigaon. Considering the urgency of the matter, we directed the petition to be taken up at 12:30 p.m.

The principal ground raised on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the notice for conducting the meeting, is that the Shrikant Malani petitioner has not been informed about the grounds on which the no confidence motion is to be considered. It is specifically contended that the notice dated 29th July 2025, regarding the meeting to be conducted today i.e. 04th August 2025, at 02:00 p.m. does not indicate as to what are the grounds on which eight members of the Gram Panchayat have moved such a motion of no confidence.

We have perused the copy of the notice placed on record, which is at Exhibit “B”. The notice specifically encloses a copy of the notice of no confidence motion moved by eight members of the Gram Panchayat. It is relevant to note here that the petitioner has not annexed copy of the said notice of no confidence moved by eight members of the Gram Panchayat.

The learned AGP has tendered a copy of the same and it shows that the petitioner had indeed received the notice along with enclosures.

Only on the basis of suppression of the most vital document in this petition, we are inclined to dismiss the same.

Yet, we have considered the only ground raised on behalf of the petitioner on merits. We find that copy of the notice of no Shrikant Malani confidence submitted by eight members of the Gram Panchayat dated 29th July 2025, copy of which has been tendered by the learned AGP, for our perusal, shows that the said members have specified as many as seven subjects on which they have been constrained to move such a no confidence motion.

Hence, the petitioner is clearly aware about the issues that would be discussed in the meeting and the notice issued by the Tahsildar gives sufficient information to the petitioner as to on what counts he is supposed to defend his conduct during the meeting when the no confidence motion is discussed. The law has been complied with in the present case, including section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959. No prejudice is suffered by the petitioner at all and hence, there is no merit in the present petition.

Copy of the notice of no confidence tendered by the learned AGP is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Shrikant Malani