Bombay High Court

ARCHANA MOHAN JAISWALversusTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR JALNA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The Court upheld the District Collector's order, holding that the notice was properly served and the petition dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner challenged the District Collector's order dismissing her application under Section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959, alleging improper service of notice for a No‑Confidence Motion. The Collector held that the notice was affixed at a conspicuous part of the petitioner's residence after she was not present, deeming it proper service. The High Court examined the validity of this service and the procedural propriety of the Collector's decision. Finding the Collector's determination on notice satisfactory and noting that the petitioner's contentions lacked merit, the Court saw no ground to interfere. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the notice of the No‑Confidence Motion was validly served despite the petitioner's absence.
Whether the District Collector's order under Section 35(3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act can be set aside.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 — s. 35(3)

Subjects

No‑Confidence Motion
Village Panchayat
Service of notice
Section 35(3)
Writ petition
District Collector
Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:21961
                                               1 of 2                929-WP.5364.2026



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              929 WRIT PETITION NO. 5364 OF 2026

                                    ARCHANA MOHAN JAISWAL
                                              VERSUS
                           THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR JALNA AND OTHERS
                                                 ...
               Mr. Ravindra Vitthal Gore, Advocate for the Petitioner.
               Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State.
               Mr. Vishant P. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 10.
                                                 ...

                                       CORAM :          SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                       DATE     :       21st MAY, 2026
                                                        (VACATION COURT)
               P.C.:-

               1.       Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

               2.       By the present petition, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the

               order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the learned District Collector, Jalna

               in C.R. No.63/2026, whereby the application under Section 35(3) of

               the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 came to be dismissed.


               3.       Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties

               and upon perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the strength of

               the Gram Panchayat was of 9 members amongst which the Petitioner

               and one Jayshree Rupesh Jaiswal remain absent on the date of No-

               Confidence Motion. All remaining 7 members voted in favour of No-

               Confidence Motion. As far as the issue of notice of No-Confidence

               Motion is concerned, the learned Collector has given a finding that the
                                           2 of 2                929-WP.5364.2026



          Petitioner was not available at her residence at the time of service of

          notice.   Therefore, notice was affixed at conspicuous part of her

          residence and a panchanama of the same was prepared, which

          amounted to a proper service. Hence, the contentions of the Petitioner

          are devoid of any merit.


          4.        In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere

          with the order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the learned District

          Collector, Jalna in C.R. No.63/2026.


          5.        Hence, the present petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.


                                             (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…