SUBHASH & ORS. versus SUREKHA HANUMANT BANKAR & ORS.
[2021] 1 S.C.R. 716, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 716
716
SUBHASH & ORS.
v.
SUREKHA HANUMANT BANKAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 720 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 26, 2021
[A.M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Gram Panchayat – Respondent No. 1 was elected as Village
Sarpanch in general elections of Gram Panchayat – Members of
the Gram Panchayat moved resolution expressing no-confidence
against respondent No.1 – Resolution passed by requisite majority
on 19.10.2020 – Respondent No.1 carried the matter before the
Collector, who, vide order dated 31.12.2020 held that no-confidence
motion was required to be ratified by Special Gram Sabha conducted
in the village in presence of an Independent Officer appointed by
the Collector – Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition which was
allowed by the High Court – Before Supreme Court, plea of
appellants that the High Court ought not to have set aside the
resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat; and at best, it ought to
have directed to take follow up steps as required in terms of the
decision of the Collector – Respondent No. 1, however, submitted
that as per guidelines issued by State Government, the resolution
was required to be placed for consideration before the Special Gram
Sabha at least within 10 days from the date of Collector’s order
and since that period had expired long back, the process cannot be
continued further – Held: Respondent No.1 was unable to point
out any provision in the Village Panchayat Act which
postulated
that if the proposed resolution was not placed before the Gram
Sabha within specified time, the same would lapse in law – In
absence of such a provision, it cannot be assumed that the resolution
had lapsed in law, merely because of some direction issued by
concerned department of State Government – The no-confidence
resolution was challenged by respondent No.1 before the process
of ratification could be taken forward by the Collector – After the
decision of the Collector, the matter travelled to the High Court
once again at the instance of respondent No.1 and finally before
Supreme Court – Respondent No.1 cannot be allowed to take
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
717
advantage of that situation by placing reliance on administrative
instructions – No confidence motion passed on 19.10.2020 and
confirmed by the Collector vide order dated 31.12.2020 to be taken
forward in accordance with law.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.720 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.01.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Auranagabad in Writ Petition No.238
of 2021.
Pravin V. Mandlik, Sr. Adv., Shirish K. Deshpande, Ms. Rucha
Pravin Mandlik, Advs. for the Appellants.
Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Rana Sandeep Bussa, Gagandeep
Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following order of the Court was passed:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated
20.01.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at
Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 238 of 2021 allowing the writ petition
filed by the respondent No.1.
3. The respondent No. 1 was directly elected as a Sarpanch of
the village Karajkheda, Taluk and District Osmanabad by the public in
general election of the Gram Panchayat held on 17.10.2017. Because of
his acts of commission and omission, the members of the Gram Panchayat
moved resolution expressing no-confidence against respondent No.1.
That resolution was passed by requisite majority on 19.10.2020. Against
that resolution, the respondent No.1 carried the matter before the
Collector, who, in turn, vide order dated 31.12.2020 issued the following
directions:
“1. A Special Gram Sabha of the Gram Panchayat should be held
by secret ballot decision be taken on the no-confidence motion
passed against the Sarpanch of Karajkheda, Taluka Osmanabad
on 19.10.2020. in this Gram Sabha, the only issue will be to approve
SUBHASH & ORS. v. SUREKHA HANUMANT
BANKAR & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
the no-confidence motion passed against the Sarpanch.”
2. Group development officer, Class-1, Panchayat Samiti,
Osmanabad is appointed as the Presiding Officer of this special
Gram Sabha.
3.  As per the relevant Acts, Rules and provisions in the letter of
the Government, the Group Development Officer, Class-1,
Panchayat Samiti, Osmanabad, should complete the procedure
for holding the special Gram Sabha and submit the compliance
report to this office.
4. The decision should be communicated to all concerned and the
file should be submitted in the record/archive room.”
4. Against the said decision, the matter was taken before the High
Court by respondent No. 1 by way of Writ Petition (C) No. 238 of 2021.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed that writ petition in
terms of prayer clause (b). The effect of the order passed by the High
Court was to not only set aside the order passed by the Collector dated
31.12.2020 but also resolution dated 19.10.2020.
5. Being aggrieved by this decision, the appellants have approached
this court by way of present appeal. According to the appellants, the
High Court ought not to have set aside the resolution passed by the
Gram Panchayat. At best, it ought to have directed to take follow up
steps as required in terms of the decision of the Collector. In that, as
held by the Collector, no-confidence motion was required to be ratified
by the Special Gram Sabha conducted in the
village in the presence of
an Independent Officer appointed by the Collector.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 would, however,
submit that the resolution was moved on 19.10.2020 and as per the
guidelines issued by the Rural Development Department, Government
of Maharashtra dated 20.10.2020, the resolution was required to be placed
for consideration before the Special Gram Sabha at least within 10 days
from the date of Collector’s order and since that period has expired long
back, the process cannot be continued further and for which reason no
interference is warranted with the conclusion reached by the High Court.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. From the indisputable facts, it is obvious that the direction issued
by the Collector in terms of order dated 31.12.2020, is in conformity
with the relevant provisions of the Village Panchayat Act including
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
719
amended Section 35-1A, which reads thus:
“35-1A. In respect of the panchayat to which the Sarpanch is
directly elected under Section 30A-1A, the provisions of this section
shall apply with the following modifications:-
(a) in sub-section(1) for the words “one-third” the words “two-
third” shall be substituted;
(b) in sub-section(3) for the portion beginning with the words “if
the motion” and ending with the words “against the Sarpanch”
the following portion shall be substituted, namely:-
“if the motion of no-confidence is carried by a majority of not
less than three-fourth of the total number of the members who
are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of
the panchayat, the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch, as the case
may be, and ratified before the special Gram Sabha by the
secret ballot in the present and under the Chairmanship of the
Officer appointed for the purpose by the Collector, shall
forthwith stop, exercising all the powers and, performing all
the functions and duties of the office and thereupon such
powers, functions and duties shall vest in the Upa-Sarpanch.”
(c) for the fourth proviso, the following provisos shall be substituted,
namely:-
“Provided also that, no such motion of no-confidence shall be
brought within a period of two years from the date of election
of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch and before the six months
preceding the date on which the term of panchayat expires:
Provided also that, if the no-confidence motion
fails, then no
motion shall be brought before the passage of time of next two
years.”
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is unable to point out
any provision in the Act which postulates that if the proposed resolution
is not placed before the Gram Sabha within specified time, the same
would lapse in law. Thus, in absence of such a provision, it cannot be
assumed that the resolution had lapsed in law, merely because of some
direction issued by the concerned department of Government of
Maharashtra. In the present case, the no-confidence resolution was
SUBHASH & ORS. v. SUREKHA HANUMANT
BANKAR & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
challenged by the respondent No. 1 before the Collector, before the
process of ratification could be taken forward by the Collector. After
the decision of the Collector, the matter travelled to the High Court once
again at the instance of the respondent No. 1 and finally before this
Court. The respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed to take advantage of
that situation by placing reliance on administrative instructions dated
31.12.2020. It necessarily follows that no confidence motion passed on
19.10.2020 and confirmed by the Collector vide order dated 31.12.2020
needs to be taken forward in accordance with law. For that, the Special
Gram Sabha will have to be convened forthwith for considering ratification
of the no-confidence motion passed on 19.10.2020.
10. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court is set aside and the parties are relegated to the position
stated in the order passed by the Collector for complying with the
necessary formalities regarding ratification of the resolution passed on
19.10.2020. The Collector shall do the needful expeditiously, as per the
statutory scheme and the period specified therein.
11. Until such time, the post of Sarpanch be held by the
Upasarpanch or such other order to be passed by the Collector as per
law.
12. The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal disposed of.