DATTATRAYA RAMCHANDRA JORIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS

                                                                  904 WP-13239-26.DOC

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 13239 OF 2026


                   Dattatraya Ramchandra Jori                              ...Petitioner

                           Versus

                   The State of Maharashtra & ors.                   …Respondents


                   Mr. Kuldeep Patil, a/w Ms. Yukta Sawant, for the Petitioner.

                   Smt. Savita Prabhune, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

                   Mr. Shailesh Chavan, for Respondent Nos. 4 – 10.


                                               CORAM :      N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                               DATE    :    07th OCTOBER 2026

SAINATH
SANJAY             Oral Order :-
BODKHE
Digitally signed
by SAINATH
SANJAY BODKHE
Date: 2026.10.08
15:50:07 +0530     1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

                   2.      The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order

                   dated 09th September, 2026 passed by the Additional Collector,

                   Pune, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner – Sarpanch

                   of the Village Panchayat, Jambut, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Pune, against

                   whom a Motion of No Confidence was passed by the Members of

                   the Village Panchayat on 04th May, 2026, came to be dismissed.

                   3.      Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted

                   that, the petitioner had raised objections to the conduct of the

                   special meeting of the Village Panchayat and had demanded that
                   SAINATH, PA                        1/4
                                                     904 WP-13239-26.DOC

the voting be held by secret ballot as a few members of the

Village Panchayat were under threat and coercion, and that two

of the members were not eligible to vote as they were defaulters.

The Presiding Officer did not consider those objections. In the

appeal        also,   the   Additional   Collector   has   not   properly

appreciated those objections and dismissed the appeal.

4.      From the perusal of the resolution passed by the Village

Panchayat in the special meeting convened on 04 th May, 2026, in

accordance with the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and

Up-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975, it becomes

evident that, out of the 10 members of the Village Panchayat,

one member was absent, eight members had voted in favour of

the No Confidence Motion and one member voted against the

motion. The motion of No-Confidence was, thus, passed by

three-fourth majority.

5.      Since the motion was carried by majority, the challenge in

the petition cannot be sustained as in the matter of Motion of

No Confidence, it is the will of the majority that prevails. Once

the resolution of No-Confidence is passed by the requisite

majority and in consonance with the statutory prescription, the

person against whom such a resolution is passed, must honour




SAINATH, PA                              2/4
                                                904 WP-13239-26.DOC

the will of the majority and make way for his successor. ( Nimba

Rajaram Mali Vs. The Collector, Jalgaon & ors.1)

6.      As regards the grievance of not holding the vote by secret

ballot, suffice to note that, under Rule 28 of the Bombay Village

Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959, votes shall ordinarily be

taken by word of mouth or by a show of hands but may, if the

majority of members present so decide, be taken by ballot. Thus

it is not peremptory that, vote on Motion of No Confidence be

taken by secret ballot. In the instant case, the Presiding Officer

had rejected the request of the petitioner to hold the voting by

secret ballot.

7.      In the case of Shila w/o Vijay Chavan Vs. State of

Maharashtra & ors.2, a learned Single Judge of this Court held

that, under the provisions of Bombay Village Panchayats

(Meetings) Rules, 1959, the Presiding Officer was not bound to

invite the members present in the meeting convened for

consideration of the Motion of No-Confidence to demand the

voting by secret ballot. Nor was it essential for the Presiding

Officer to pass the specific orders on the written application for

voting by secret ballot if the majority did not ask for it.




1       AIR 1999 BOMBAY 335
2       2024 (4) Mh.L.J. 395
SAINATH, PA                         3/4
                                              904 WP-13239-26.DOC

8.      It would also be relevant to note that, in the case of

Tatyasaheb Ramchandra Kale Vs. Navnath Tukaram Kakde 3, a

Full Bench of this Court has enunciated that, the infraction in

the matter of compliance of Rule 17 of the Bombay Village

Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959, cannot impinge upon the

validity of the motion of no-confidence which has otherwise

been passed by fulfilling the requirement of Section 35(3) of the

Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959.

9.      The Additional Collector has found that, there was no

substance in the objections of the petitioner that, two of the

members of the Panchayat who participated in the meeting were

the defaulters. There is no reason to interfere with such finding

of fact.

10.     In the aforesaid view of the matter, the petition does not

deserve to be entertained.

11.     The Writ Petition stands dismissed.



                                         [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




3       AIR 2015 BOMBAY 87
SAINATH, PA                        4/4