08 August 2024 Constitutional & Government >> Constitution & Law Procedure  

The recent case of Amrapali Sakharam Kamble v/s The District Collector, Kolhapur & Others involving the Sarpanch of Mhasrang Gram Panchayat has raised significant legal questions concerning the process and validity of a No-Confidence Motion against an elected Panchayat leader. This case underscores the procedural requirements and the judicial scrutiny of such motions under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, and the associated rules.

Background:

On January 18, 2021, elections were held for the Mhasrang Gram Panchayat, with the petitioner and other members taking office. By February 26, 2021, the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch. However, from October 2022 onwards, the petitioner was absent from the Panchayat meetings. She requested leave from December 23, 2022, to January 6, 2023, due to her son's illness, which was approved. A subsequent leave application for February 24, 2023, to March 20, 2023, was rejected on February 25, 2023. On February 27, 2023, a requisition for a No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner was submitted, and a meeting was scheduled for March 3, 2023, where the motion was passed.

Legal Challenge:

Dissatisfied with the No-Confidence Motion, the petitioner appealed to the Collector under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act. The appeal was dismissed on September 18, 2023, leading to the present petition challenging the order.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner’s legal team argued that:

1. The leave application for February 24, 2023, to March 20, 2023, was rejected improperly, and the motion was initiated with malafide intent due to her absence for medical reasons.
2. The requisition for the No-Confidence Motion was not properly served to the petitioner, violating Rule 2(2-B) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975.
3. The petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to defend herself as she was only notified of the rejection of her leave application and the meeting through the notice served on February 27, 2023. The petitioner's request for an adjournment was ignored.

Respondents’ Arguments:

The respondents, including the members who initiated the motion, argued that:

1. The Tahsildar correctly convened the meeting within the seven-day period as mandated by Section 35 of the Act.
2. The petitioner was properly notified about the meeting and had the opportunity to attend, despite her absence.
3. The right to speak at the meeting is not contingent on receiving the requisition but on the Sarpanch’s ability to participate in the proceedings.

Court’s Analysis:

The court examined the procedural adherence and the petitioner’s right to participate in the meeting:

1. Procedural Compliance: The court confirmed that the Tahsildar had followed the legal requirement to convene the meeting within seven days of receiving the requisition. The meeting on March 3, 2023, complied with this requirement.
2. Right to Speak: The court noted that while the petitioner had the right to speak, she chose to submit written submissions through her father-in-law instead of attending the meeting. The court found that the petitioner was not deprived of the opportunity to participate as she was notified of the meeting well in advance and had submitted her views.
3. Legal Precedents: The court referred to previous decisions indicating that procedural lapses, if any, did not undermine the majority's decision once the No-Confidence Motion was passed. The principle of honoring the majority’s decision in democratic processes was upheld.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that there were no significant procedural violations that warranted interference. The dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal was upheld, and it was determined that the petition did not merit judicial intervention under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to democratic principles and procedural requirements in Panchayat governance.

  Constitution of India, 1950