Bombay High Court

PADMABAI SHAMRAO KARHEversusDISTRICT COLLECTOR BEED AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The earlier no‑confidence motion was invalidated due to procedural defect, so the later motion was not barred, and ballot‑paper voting was permissible; the writ petition was dismissed.

Summary

The petition challenged an order of the District Collector, Beed, which had validated a no‑confidence motion passed against Padmabai Shamrao Karhe on 16 January 2026 under Section 35(3‑B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The petitioner argued that a prior no‑confidence motion, held on 3 February 2025 and later set aside, barred any subsequent motion within two years, and that the recent meeting’s use of ballot‑paper voting without an independent ballot box was unlawful. The Court found that the earlier motion was invalidated due to non‑compliance with Rule 7 of the Meeting Rules, so it could not be said to have been successfully passed and therefore did not bar a later motion. The Court also held that voting by ballot paper was permissible as it was allowed on the members’ demand and the requisite majority was achieved. Consequently, the Court saw no ground for interference and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the second no‑confidence motion dated 16‑01‑2026 is barred by Section 35(3‑B) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 because an earlier motion was set aside within two years.
Whether voting by ballot paper without an independent ballot box is a valid mode of voting under the applicable meeting rules.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958 — s. 35(3-B)

Subjects

no confidence motion
Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act
procedural defect
ballot voting
writ jurisdiction
local self‑government

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:30322
906-wp-7565-2026.odt
(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7565 OF 2026
Padmabai Shamrao Karhe
VERSUS
District Collector Beed And Others
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shrikant G. Kawade & Legal
Associates
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. R.K. Ingole
Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. V.P. Savant
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : JULY 22, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. Present writ petition takes exception to order dated

03.06.2026 passed by District Collector, Beed under Section 35(3-B)

of Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, whereby no confidence

motion passed against petitioner has been invalidated.

2. Learned advocate appearing for petitioner raises two fold

contentions. Firstly, it is contention of petitioner that earlier,

petitioner was subjected to no confidence motion. On 03.02.2025,

Tahsildar conducted special meeting for no confidence motion. The

Tahsildar had declared that no confidence motion was successfully

passed. The petitioner had challenged no confidence motion before

Collector in appeal. It was allowed and no confidence motion passed

in meeting dated 06.03.2025 was quashed and set aside. The said

order is confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4659 of 2025.

Therefore, second no confidence motion which is moved against
906-wp-7565-2026.odt
(2)

petitioner on 16.01.2026 is barred by law, as it is within two years of

earlier no confidence motion. The petitioner raises second contention

that during meeting of no confidence motion, voting by ballot paper

was permitted without providing independent ballot box.

3. So far as first contention of petitioner, this Court finds

that earlier no confidence motion passed against petitioner was

invalidated, as notice of meeting was not served in accordance with

Rule 7 of Meeting Rules. Since, technical error was found in

proceeding, entire proceeding for no confidence motion was

invalidated. In such a case, it cannot be said that no confidence

motion moved against petitioner was failed. Therefore, subsequent

no confidence motion against petitioner on 16.01.2026 cannot be said

to be barred by law. The second contention of petitioner that voting

was permitted through ballot paper which is not accepted mode

cannot be countenanced, as voting by ballot paper was permitted in

meeting on demand of members. Secondly, record indicates that

majority of members voted against petitioner and passed no

confidence motion by requisite majority.

4. In that view of matter, this Court finds no ground for

interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition stands rejected.

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

Mujaheed//

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…