The bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai observed that as soon as a person loses the confidence of the majority, he becomes unwanted. In a democratic set up, the will of the majority has to prevail.
The facts of the case were such that the appellants and the respondents were elected as members of Panchayat Samiti in 2017 with the authorization of Indian National Congress Party and formed a ‘Panchayat Samiti Party’ in the name of INCPS Party. The first meeting was presided over by the then President of the Ahmednagar District INC Party. It was resolved to select the appellant as Gatneta (Party Leader/Party Whip) of INCPS Party. A complaint came to be filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 against the appellant before the District President, Ahmednagar District INC Party alleging therein that the appellant during her tenure of two and half years had neither taken the members of INCPS Party into confidence nor had convened any meeting of INCPS Party. In the meeting held under the Chairmanship of Ahmednagar District INC Party President a unanimous resolution was passed for removing the appellant from the post of Party Leader of INCPS Party. The appellant thereafter approached the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, by way of Writ Petition challenging the decision of the District Collector, Ahmednagar approving the appointment of respondent No.3 as Gatneta. The High Court dismissed the said writ petition. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal by way of special leave.
Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in accordance with Maharashtra Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987 the appellant was elected as Party Leader for a period of five years. It is submitted that in the absence of any rule to the contrary the appellant could not have been removed as a Party Leader until completion of a period of five years. The Counsel further submitted that the meeting to remove the appellant from the post of Party Leader was convened by the President of the Ahmednagar District INC Party, who was an outsider. It is submitted that in the event the appellant did not convene a meeting, the only course available to respondent Nos3 to 5 was to give a requisition to the appellant and only in the event of her failure to convene a meeting, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 could have convened a meeting.
Shri Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the District Collector had initially approved the appellant as Gatneta since the same was based on a resolution passed by all the four members of the INCPS Party.
Shri Ravindra Adsure, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, submitted that the appellant by breaking the INCPS Party chose to contest the election for the post of Chairman contrary to the mandate of the INCPS Party and was elected to the post of Chairman with the support of the rivals.
The Court found that the President of the District INC Party was given the ability to take action regarding a change of leadership at the first meeting in 2017. As a result, the appellant cannot be heard to express her dissatisfaction with the mechanism used to remove her, because the same procedure had been used to appoint the appellant as Party Leader. Referring to the case Sunil Haribhau Kale v. Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar and others [(2015) 11 SCC 403], the court observed “ where a municipal party is an aghadi, its leader has to be chosen by the aghadi or front. Necessarily, any change in the leader of the municipal party is to be effected by the aghadi and not by many outsiders. Once the Rules provide for the election of the Group Leader, it has to be done in that manner only and not in any other manner, even when there is change of the leader. The change of leader has to be in the same democratic process of induction, in the absence of any other method prescribed under the Rules concerned.”
The court was of the view that the appellant was elected as Gatneta when she enjoyed the support of all the members of INCPS Party. However, she lost the support of the majority of the INCPS Party when she chose to contest the election of the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti with the support of the rivals. Hence, the appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Read the complete judgment by clicking on the case title : Sau. Sangeeta W/o Sunil Shinde Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors. [Reportable in the Supreme Court of India Civil Appeal No. 5059 OF 2021]