1 WP / 3140 / 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3140 OF 2025 Ramdas Bhivesn Waditake and others .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary and others .. Respondents ... Advocate for the petitioners : Mr. Umakant U. Wagh AGP for the respondent – State : Mr. M.M. Nerlikar ... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ. DATE : 05 MARCH 2025 ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) : The petitioners are the elected members of Gram Panchayat Pimpalgaon Phungi, Taluka - Rahuri. They were elected in the general election held in the year 2021 and the tenure of the elected body is for a period of five years from 2021 to 2026. Petitioner no. 1 was elected as first sarpanch on 10.02.2021. 2. It is not disclosed as to how the post of sarpanch became vacant but it has been averred in the petition that on 17.04.2023, respondent no. 5 was elected as a sarpanch. Petitioners applied to the respondent - Tehsildar for convening a meeting for moving no confidence motion against respondent no. 5 under section 35 of the 2025:BHC-AUG:6984-DB 2 WP / 3140 / 2025 Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1951 (Panchayats Act). By the communication dated 10.02.2025, the Tahsildar has refused to convene the meeting on the ground as contemplated under section 35(2) of the Panchayats Act since the period of two years was not over from the date respondent no. 5 was elected as a sarpanch, and cancelled the notice convening the meeting. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently submits that the period of two years prescribed under fourth proviso of section 35, has to be reckoned from the election of the first sarpanch and is not a bar for moving any such motion in respect of sarpanch elected subsequently during the five year tenure of an elected body. 4. Fourth proviso to section 35 reads as under :- 35 Motion of no confidence. (1) A motion of no confidence may be moved by not less than two-third of the total number of the members who are for the time being entitlted to sit and vote at any meeting of the panchayat against the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch after giving such notice thereof to the Tahsildar as may be prescribed. Such notice once given shall not be withdrawn. (2) ... (3)(a) ... Provided that, ... Provided that, ... Provided that, ... 3 WP / 3140 / 2025 Provided also that, no such motion of no-confidence shall be moved within a period of two years from the date of election of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch and before six months preceding the date on which the term of panchayat expires. A plain reading of the proviso in the context of the entire provision, would make it abundantly clear that the immunity from facing a no confidence motion is qua an individual who has been elected as a sarpanch or upa sarpanch and has no nexus with the tenure of the elected body much less restricted to first sarpanch or upa sarpanch elected. In our considered view, a right is created in favour of any person who is elected as sarpanch irrespective of whether he is elected as a first sarpanch in the first meeting after the general election or is elected as such subsequently if and when the post of sarpanch or upa sarpanch becomes vacant. 5. Learned advocate would submit that the words ‘before six months preceding the date on which the term of panchayat expires’ have to be read disjunctively. He would submit that since more than six months still remain for the term of the panchayat to expire, respondent no. 5 is not entitled to any immunity merely because two years period is still to get over from the date of his election. 6. We do not agree with the submission of the learned advocate. The fourth proviso to section 35 contemplates and provides immunity in case of two states of contingencies. Firstly, the period of 4 WP / 3140 / 2025 two years is still to expire from the date of election of sarpanch or upa sarpanch during which period, no such motion of no confidence can be moved. Second contingency is when even though the period of two years has expired but a period of less than six months has remained for completion of term of the panchayat. Both these conditions are independent and operate in different spheres. 7. The impugned order expressly mentions that the period of two years has not expired from the date respondent no. 5 was elected as a sarpanch. There is no dispute about this fact and consequently, the motion being premature, no fault can be found with the impugned communication, whereby the Tahsildar has recalled the notice by which he had convened the meeting on a requisition filed by the petitioners. 8. The petition is dismissed in limine. [ PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE arp/