A. K. MATHLUR, C. J.

( 1 ) ALL the aforesaid writ petitions involve common question of law, therefore, they are disposed of by this common Order.

( 2 ) FOR convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts given in Jagdish Prasad Bhunjwa v. State of M. P. (WP 3141/95) are taken into consideration.

( 3 ) THE petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition has challenged the validity of Section 21 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1994 and have also challenged the motion of no-confidence against the elected Sarpanch and Upsarpanch being unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this petition are thus : The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch directly by the voters of Gram Panchayat-Arkandi, Tehsil-Maihar, Districtsatna as provided under Section 17 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act of 1994' ). It is alleged that under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act, a Sarpanch is to be elected by the person whose names are included in the list of voters of' Gram Panchayat. Therefore, as per the provisions, the petitioner was elected directly as Sarpanch by the voters of the Gram Panchayat-Arkandi. Likewise, there is a provision under Section 17 (5) of the Act, Up-Sarpanch is to be elected from amongst the elected Panchas. Thus, the election of Up-Sarpanch is indirect and is to be elected by the Panchas whereas the election of Sarpanch is direct and is to be elected by the voters of the Gram Panchayat. It is alleged that under Section 21 of the Act, motion of no confidcnce against the Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch is to be passed by the elected Panchas by a resolution passed by majority of not less than three fourth of the Panchas present and voting and such majority is more than two third of the total members of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being. A notice was issued on 4-9-1995 by the respondent-Sub-Divisional Officer calling for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat for consideration of no confidence motion, which was moved by 7 Panchas. The meeting was fixed on 11-9-1995. It is alleged that some representations were made that the Sarpanch has been elected directly by voters therefore, vote of no confidence cannot be considered by the elected Panchas of the Gram Panchayat. It is alleged that the voters of the village-Arkanadi requested that the petitioner should continue as Sarpanch for five years. But it is submitted that the total voters of the Village-Arkandi is about 554 out of which a memorandum was signed by 387 voters. A meeting of the Gram Panchayat which was convened by the Sub-Divisional Officer, was adjourned for the reasons that the notice was issued on 11-9-1995 by the respondent, S. D. O. adjourning the meeting and further directed the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat for issuance of fresh notice as per Rules. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the validity of Section 21 of the Act.

( 5 ) THE Principal submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the batch of petitions is that once the Sarpanch has been declared elected directly then he cannot be removed by way of no confidence motion through the elected Panchas i. e. directly elected Sarpanch cannot be removed by Panchas by indirect method of passing of no confidence by the elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It is also submitted that the Constitution does not provide the right to recall except as provided under other provisions of the Act; therefore, Section 21 of the Act is ultra-vires, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that in Article 243 of the Constitution, there is no provision for recalling any panch; therefore, Section 21 of the Act is also violative of Article 243 of the Constitution of India.

( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy which has been raised; it may be relevant to mention the history of this ena

Click Here to Read the rest of this document