Back
2008 Supreme(MP) 117
2008(2) JLJ 9
A.K. Gohil and Sanjay Yadav, JJ.
Seva Yadav (Smt.) v. State of M.P. and another
Writ Appeal No.45 of 2008 (Gwalior) : against the order of Single Judge, passed in Writ Petition No.5821 of 2007; Decided on 23.1.2008.
Gaurav Samadhiya for appellant;
Brajesh Sharma, Government Advocate, for respondents;
R.D. Jain with D.P.S. Bhadoria for Caveator.
Headnote:Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha VicePresident Ke Viruddh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (M.P.) -- R.3( 3) -- no-confidence motion -- provision as to time of 15 days for meeting and 7 days of notice to members is mandatory -- however, period can be enhanced or reduced on sound reasoning if no prejudice is caused.
Meeting was fixed for 13.12.2007 at Government Secretariat Building at 11 a.m. for considering the motion of no-confidence. On the same day i.e., on 5.12.2007, at about 2:30p.m., CEO Janpad Panchayat Pohri submitted a letter that the election programme for the election of Panch of Ward No.16 has been pronounced by the Election Officer, District Shivpuri and election programme has commenced from 30.11.2007 to 22.12.2007 and model code of conduct has also come into force. Therefore, in such circumstances it was considered that the election programme will affect the meeting for no-confidence motion. Therefor the meeting fixed for 13.12.2007 was adjourned and it was directed that fresh date shall be fixed after 22.12.2007. [Para 2
Shri Gaurav Samadhiya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the action of the SDO in adjourning the meeting, which was fixed for consideration of no-confidence motion, is illgal under law, that he has no power to adjourn the meeting and if the meeting is adjourned, fresh meeting cannot be convened by the SDO as the notice for no-confidence motion given by 13 panch members would die automatically and fresh notice would be required for consideration of the no-confidence motion. [Para 4
Held: It is clear that this Court has approved this interpretation of rule 3(3) of ‘Niyam of 1994‘ that fixing the date of meeting within 15 days is mandatory, but as no consequences have been mandated under the Rules, therefore, if the meeting is fixed prior to 15 days or after the period of 15 days, it would not nullify the entire action of passing no-confidence motion. 2003(2) JLJ 182, 2000(2) JLJ 253 (FE), 1998(2) JLJ 113, 1999(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 4, 1998(1) JLJ 395 and 1975 JLJ 500 relied on. 1996 MPLJ 409 not more good law. [Paras 14 & 15
iapk;r ¼xzke iapk;r ds ljiap rFkk mi&ljiap] tuin iapk;r rFkk ftyk iapk;r ds v/;{k rFkk mik/;{k ds fo#) vfo‘okl çLrko½ fu;e] 1994 ¼e-ç-½ & & fu-3 ¼3½& &vfo‘okl çLrko& &lfEeyu ds fy, 15 fnu rFkk lnL;ksa dks lwpuk dk 7 fnu ds le; ds ckjs esa mica/k vkKkid gS& &rFkkfi] lgh dkj.kksa ij dkykof/k c<+kbZ vFkok ?kVkbZ tk ldrh gS ;fn dksbZ çfrdwy çHkko ugha iM+rk gksA
vfo‘okl çLrko ij fopkj fd, tkus ds fy, lfEeyu 13-12-2007 dks ‘kkldh; lfpoky; Hkou ij çkr% 11-00 cts fu;r fd;k x;k FkkA mlh fnu vFkkZr 5-12-2007 dks yxHkx 2-30 cts vijkgu] eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r iksgjh }kjk i= çLrqr fd;k x;k fd okMZ Ø- 16 ds iap ds fuokZpu ds fy, fuokZpu vf/kdkjh] ftyk f‘koiqjh }kjk fuokZpu dk;ZØe mn~?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;k gS rFkk fuokZpu dk;ZØe 30-11-2007 ls 22-12-2007 rd çkjaHk gks x;k gS vkSj vkn‘kZ vkpkj lafgrk Hkh çHkkoh gks pqdh gSA vr% bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g ekuk x;k fd fuokZpu dk;ZØe vfo‘okl çLrko ds lfEeyu dks çHkkfor djsxkA vr% 17-12-2007 ds fy, fu;r lfEeyu LFkfxr fd;k x;k rFkk fufn‘V fd;k x;k fd ubZ rkjh[k 22-12-2007 ds i‘pkr fu;r dh tk,xhA ¼iSjk 2½
vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls milatkr fo}ku dkmUlsy Jh xkSjo lekf/k;k }kjk vkxzgiwoZd fuosnu fd;k x;k fd lfEeyu tks vfo‘okl çLrko ij fopkj djus ds fy, fd;k x;k Fkk] LFkfxr djus dh mi[kaM vf/kdkjh dh dk;Zokgh fof/k ds v/khu voS/k gS] fd lfEeyu LFkfxr djus dh ‘kfDr mls ugha Fkh rFkk ;fn lfEeyu LFkfxr fd;k tkrk gS rc mi[kaM vf/kdkjh }kjk u;k lfEeyu cqyk;k ugha tk ldrk D;ksafd 13 iap lnL;ksa }kjk fn, x, vfo‘okl çLrko dh lwpuk Lor% lekIr gks tk,xh rFkk vfo‘okl çLrko ij fopkj fd, tkus ds fy, ubZ lwpuk vko‘;d gksxhA ¼iSjk 4½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g Li"V gS fd bl U;k;ky; us 1994 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 3 ¼3½ dk ;g fuoZpu vuqeksfnr fd;k gS fd lfEeyu dh rkjh[k 15 fnu ds Hkhrj fu;r dh tkuk vkKkid gS] fdarq D;ksafd fu;eksa ds v/khu dksbZ Hkh ifj.kke vkKkfir ugha fd, x, gSa blfy, ;fn lfEeyu 15 fnu ds iwoZ ;k 15 fnu dh dkykof/k ds i‘pkr fu;r fd;k x;k gS] rc vfo‘okl çLrko ikfjr djus dh laiw.kZ dk;Zokgh vÑr ugha gksxhA 2003¼2½ ts ,y ts 182] 2000¼2½ ts ,y ts 253 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] 1998¼2½ ts ,y ts 113] 1999¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 4] 1998¼1½ ts ,y ts 395 rFkk 1975 ts ,y ts 500 voyafcrA 1996 ,e ih ,y ts 409 vc ekU; fof/k ughaA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15½
Gohil, J. -- 1. The appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 7.1.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5821/07, whereby dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner challenging the action of the competent authority regarding the adjournment of meeting dated 13.12.2007, which was fixed for consideration of no-confidence motion, has filed this writ appeal under section 2( 1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Todia Khasla District Shivpuri. She was elected in the month of January-February 2005. Her case before the writ Court was that on 29.11.2007, out of total 18, 13 panchas of the aforesaid Panchayat submitted a motion for no-confidence before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The motion was signed by all 13 members and grounds were also mentioned therein. The aforesaid motion was taken on record and direction was given to the Secretary to produce the record as well as to Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pohri to produce the list of elected panch of the Panchayat. A copy of the aforesaid resolution was also forwarded to the Collector and the case was fixed for 5.12.2007. A notice under rule 3(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Viruddh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Niyam of 1994) was also issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 29.11.2007 to the appellant. On 5.12.2007 Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pohri produced a list of 18 elected Panch of the Panchayat and it was mentioned that one Panch elected from Ward No.16 has expired. Thereafter Naib Tehsi1dar was appointed as Presiding Officer and meeting was fixed for 13.12.2007 at Government Secretariat Building at 11 a.m. for considering the motion of no-confidence. On the same day i.e., on 5.12.2007, at about 2:30 p.m., CEO Janpad Panchayat Pohri submitted a letter that the election programme for the election of Panch of Ward No.16 has been pronounced by the Election Officer, District Shivpuri and election programme has commenced from 30.11.2007 to 22.12.2007 and model code of conduct has also come into force. Therefore, in such circumstances it was considered that the election programme will affect the meeting for no-confidence motion. Therefore the meeting fixed for 13.12.2007 was adjourned and it was directed that fresh date shall be fixed after 22.12.2007. Against this order of adjournment, the petitioner has filed WP No.5821/07. By order dated 7.1.2008 learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition holding therein that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the SDO respondent No.2 has not committed any illegality in adjourning the meeting of 13.12.2007, which was fixed for considering the no-confidence motion and dismissed the writ petition against which the appellant has filed this writ appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and record.
4. Shri Gaurav Samadhiya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the action of the SDO in adjourning the meeting, which was fixed for consideration of no-confidence motion, is illgal under law, that he has no power to adjourn the meeting and if the meeting is adjourned, fresh meeting cannot be convened by the SDO as the notice for no-confidence motion given by 13 panch members would die automatically and fresh notice would be required for consideration of the no-confidence motion. He drew our attention on the provisions of rule 3 of the 'Niyam 1994' and submitted that the meeting on the earlier notice cannot be fixed more than 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said notice and laid emphasis on the following words mentioned in the rule 3(3) -- "which shall not be more than 15 days from the date of
