Digambar Mahadev Bhajanawale v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, though a request was made for the voting to be conducted by secret ballot, the Tahsildar, 1 of 2 contrary to the procedure laid down, permitted the voting to be conducted by a show of hands.…
- Para 44. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there was no debate permitted before passing the ‘No Confidence Motion’. We find that the Tahsildar has recorded the Minutes, which clearly indicated not only the Petitioner was heard but after…
Judgment
—————— Mr. Devdatta A. Jagadale a/w. Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad (Through V.C.) for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B. Kalel, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : M. S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ. Date : 3rd October 2025. P. C. :
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking intervention in the ‘No Confidence Motion’ passed by the Tahsildar, Sangola, District Solapur on 11th April 2025, with majority of 13 votes against 4, against the present Petitioner. The resolution was passed by the majority and an opportunity was given to the Petitioner to contest the ‘No Confidence Motion’.
It is the contention of the Petitioner that, though a request was made for the voting to be conducted by secret ballot, the Tahsildar, 1 of 2 contrary to the procedure laid down, permitted the voting to be conducted by a show of hands. The Collector in the impugned Order has clearly held that majority of the members wanted the ‘No Confidence Motion’ to be held by show of hands.
It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there was no debate permitted before passing the ‘No Confidence Motion’. We find that the Tahsildar has recorded the Minutes, which clearly indicated not only the Petitioner was heard but after it was indicated as to what are the allegations against the Petitioner, 13 out of 17 members voted in favour of the resolution of ‘No Confidence Motion’.
The Petitioner filed a statutory appeal bearing Dispute Application No. 13 of 2025, under Section 35(3)(B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, before the Collector, Solapur. We have perused the order dated 17th September 2025 passed by the Collector Solapur. The Collector by a reasoned order dismissed the said Dispute Application. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector, which is a well reasoned order.
Present Petition being devoid of any merits is therefore dismissed. [ Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik, J. ] OMKAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN 15:37:16 +0530 2 of 2
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.