Point of Law: Right to speak is inherent as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 56 and it would also be the choice or discretion of such person to exercise his right to speak and object to the Motion of No Confidence or otherwise participate in the proceedings without even objecting and such person would also be certified to remain silent or would be certified not to speak against the Motion of No Confidence.

JUDGMENT :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. This intra-court appeal lays a challenge to the correctness and legality of the judgment dated 29.9.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.8520 of 2021 whereunder the challenge made to the Resolution dated 5.5.2021 passed in the meeting of Gram Panchayat, Sejakpur, whereby No Confidence Motion moved against the appellant herein (for the purposes of convenience, hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’) came to be accepted and Special Civil Application came to be dismissed.

2. Brief background of the case is as under:-

2.1 Election to the Gram Panchayat, Sejakpur was held during December, 2016 in which election, petitioner contested for the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste and was declared elected. Appellant was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat which term was for a period of five years i.e. till December, 2021.

2.2 Six members of the Gram Panchayat moved a No Confidence Motion against the petitioner on 26.8.2019 and said No Confidence Motion was submitted to Taluka Development Officer, who in turn, forwarded a communication dated 16.9.2019 intimating the members of the Gram Panchayat including the petitioner that a meeting had been convened on 20th September, 2019 for passing the Motion of No Confidence against the appellant. In the meeting which came to be convened on 20.9.2019 the Motion of No Confidence moved against petitioner was considered and all the members including petitioner was present at said meeting. Five members voted in favour of passing the Motion of No Confidence and four members voted against moving the Motion of No Confidence. Therefore, 1st respondent recorded that No Confidence Motion was not passed with 2/3 of the total members of Panchayat and accordingly it was recorded that Motion of No Confidence had not been passed against the petitioner.

2.3 Subsequently on 23.3.2021, another Motion for No Confidence was moved by six members of the Gram Panchayat alleging that petitioner was indulging in corruption in certain construction works. Said No Confidence Motion was forwarded by Talati-cum-Mantri to Taluka Development Officer, Chuda by communication dated 10.4.2021 stating therein that Sarpanch has to call for a meeting of Gram Panchayat for the purposes of discussion of Motion of No Confidence moved against petitioner within a period of 15 days. Taluka Development Officer issued a notice on 28.4.2021 convening the meeting of Gram Panchayat on 5.5.2021 at 11 a.m. for the purposes of discussion of No Confidence Motion. Though petitioner requested for cancellation of the meeting on account of pandemic of Covid-19 prevalent, meeting as scheduled was held on 5.5.2021 and same was discussed at item No.1 of agenda and in the said meeting, nine members including the petitioner were present, out of whom, six members voted in favour of No Confidence Motion moved against petitioner, whereas three members voted against the Motion of No Confidence. Thus, number of members voted in favour of the Motion being 2/3 of the total number of members, Motion of No Confidence was passed. Taluka Development Officer, Chuda vide communication dated 10.5.2021 addressed to Talati-cum- Mantri, Sejakpur Gram Panchayat intimated that charge of Sarpanch has been handed over to Upa-Sarpanch.

2.4 Petitioner challenged the Motion of No Confidence moved against him before Development Commissioner by filing an application on 18.5.2021 and was intimated that said application was not maintainable before Development Commissioner by communication dated 18.5.2021. Hence, Special Civil Application was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Resolution dated 5.5.2021 recording No Confidence Motion against the petitioner and said Special Civil Application came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by arriving at a conclusion that there is due compliance of Section 56 of the Act in as much as the Resolution itself disclosed that petitioner though had part