Back
2003(2) JLJ 74
A.K. Mishra, J.
Sukhnandan Patel v. State of M.P. and another
W.P. No. 1916 of 2002; Decided on 14.5.2002.
The respondent No. 2-Sarpanch, aggrieved by the resolution of no-confidence motion, preferred a revision petition under section 91 of the Act, 1993. In the revision, violation of rule 4 of the Rules 1994 was alleged. The Addl. Collector dismissed the revision petition on 21.1.2002 as not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in 21(4) of the Act, 1993. The order passed by Addl. Collector was challenged in W.P. No. 500/2002 before this Court. This Court remanded the matter with the direction to treat the revision petition to be a dispute u/s 21(4) of the Act. In view of the direction, given by this Court, Collector decided it afresh on 30.3.2002•as per order Annexure P-8. The Collector has set aside the resolution of no-confidence motion. [Para 5
First question for consideration is of effect of non-compliance of rule 4 of the Rules. [Para 8
Held: In my opinion; the will of the majority of members as required u/s 21 in relation to the no-confidence motion cannot be defeated on account of inaction or delayed action of the prescribed authority. Holding otherwise, will lead to nullifying the wish of the members on the no-confidence motion for an act over which they have no control. Thus the first ground adopted by Collector is untenable. 2000(2) JLJ 253 (FB), 1975 JLJ 386, AIR 1917 PC 142, 1983 MPLJ SN-8, 1985 JLJ 522,1996 JLJ 335 and 1997(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 49 relied on. [Para 14
(2) Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-president Ke Viruddh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam; 1994 (M.P.) -- Rr. 5(3) and 5(4) -- moving of non-confidence motion not specifically recorded in minutes -- does not vitiate the motion -- vichar vimarsh made -- meaning thereby that opportunity to speak was given.
The non-compliance of rule 5(4) has been alleged to contend that respondent No.2 was not. given opportunity to speak and motion was not moved as required under rule 5(3). [Para 15
Held: Rule 5(3) requires that presiding officer shall ask any of the signatory to notice to move the motion then deliberations have to be made as to no-confidence motion. Merely due to the fact that it has not been specifically recorded in the minutes that who moved the motion at the time of meeting cannot invalidate the resolution when 12 persons have moved the notice for requisitioning tile meeting of no-confidence and there was ‘deliberation‘ made on the no-confidence motion. [Para 16
Vichar Vimarsh i.e. deliberation were made as to the no-confidence motion. It means that there was active participation of the members present and it postulates that. whosoever wanted to speak for and against motion of no-confidence was allowed an opportunity to participate. When deliberations have been made it is clear that opportunity was given and whosoever opted had an opportunity to speak. Thus, Rule 5(4) was complied with. Opportunity to speak was not denied to anyone. [Para 17
(3) Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- Ss. 91 and 21 (4) -- revision against resolution of non-Confidence motion – not maintainable -- case may be heard as dispute under S. 21(4). [Para 5
(4) Constitution of India – Arts. 226 and 227—alternative remedy – not absolute bar to entertain writ petition [Para 19
¼1½ iapk;r ¼xzke iapk;r ds ljiap rFkk miljiap] 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-4-&vfo‘okl çLrko ds lfEeyu dh lwpuk&bl fu;e ds vuuqikyu ls lE;d~ :i ls ikfjr vfo‘okl çLrko vÑr ugha gks tkrk&vkKkid mica/kksa ds vuuqikyu ls Hkh&çLrko nwf"kr ugha gksrk ;fn dksbZ çfrdwy çHkko dkfjr ugha gqvk gksA
çR;FkhZ Ø-2 ljiap us vfo‘okl ds ladYi ls O;fFkr gksdj 1993 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 91 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k vthZ çLrqr dhA iqujh{k.k esa 1994 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 4 ds vfrØe.k dk vfHkdFku fd;k x;k FkkA vij dyDVj us 1993 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21¼4½ esa varfoZ"V mica/kksa dh n`f"V ls ;g iqujh{k.k vthZ pyus ;ksX; u gksus ds dkj.k 21-1-2002 dks [kkfjt dj nhA vij dyDVj }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k ij bl U;k;ky; ds le{k fjV ;kfpdk Ø-500@2002 esa vk{ksi fd;k x;kA bl U;k;ky; us ekeyk bl funs‘k ds lkFk çfrçsf"kr dj fn;k fd iqujh{k.k vthZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21¼4½ ds v/khu fookn ekuk tk,A bl U;k;ky; }kjk fn, x, funs‘k dh n`f"V ls dysDVj us mikca/k ih&8 ds vuqlkj 30-3-2002 dks bldk fofu‘p; u, fljs ls dj fn;kA dyDVj us vfo‘okl dk ladYi vikLr dj fn;kA ¼iSjk 5½
fopkj ds fy, çFke ç‘u] fu;eksa ds fu;e 4 ds vuuqikyu ds çHkko dk gSA ¼iSjk 8½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % esjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa vfo‘okl çLrko ds laca/k esa /kkjk 21 ds v/khu ;Fkk visf{kr lnL;ksa ds cgqer dk ladYi] fofgr çkf/kdkjh dh fuf"Ø;rk vFkok foyafcr dkjZokbZ ds dkj.k foQy ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vU;Fkk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd, tkus dk ifj.kke] ,sls dk;Z ds dkj.k ftl ij mudk dksbZ fu;a=.k ugha gSa] vfo‘okl çLrko ij lnL;ksa dh bPNk vÑr fd, tkus dk gksxkA bl çdkj] dyDVj }kjk viuk;k x;k çFke vk/kkj vleFkZuh; gSA 2000¼2½ ts ,y ts 253 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] 1975 ts ,y ts 386] , vkb vkj 1917 ih lh 142] 1983 ,e ih ,y ts ,l ,u 8] 1985 ts ,y ts 522] 1996 ts ,y ts 335 rFkk 1997¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 49 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 14½
¼2½ iapk;r ¼xzke iapk;r ds ljiap rFkk miljiap] 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-5¼3½ rFkk 5¼4½&dkZo`Ùk esa vfo‘okl çLrko çLrqr fd;k tkuk fofufnZ"V :i ls vfHkfyf[kr ugha&çLrko nwf"kr ugha gksrk&^fopkj foe‘kZ* fd;k x;k&vFkZ gS fd cksyus dk volj fn;k x;kA
fu;e 5¼4½ ds vuuqikyu dk vfHkdFku ;g ladFku djus ds fy, fd;k x;k gS fd çR;FkhZ Ø-2 dks cksyus dk volj ugha fn;k x;k vkSj çLrko] fu;e 5¼3½ ;Fkk visf{kr çLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA ¿iSjk 15À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fu;e 5¼3½ esa visf{kr gS fd ihBklhu vf/kdkjh] lwpuk ds fdlh Hkh gLrk{kjdrkZ dks çLrko j[kus ds fy, dgsxk vkSj rc vfo‘okl çLrko ij fopkj&foe‘kZ fd;k tkuk gksxkA ek= bl rF; ds dkj.k fd dk;Zo`Ùk esa ;g fofufnZ"V :i ls vfHkfyf[kr ugha gSa fd lfEeyu ds le; fdlus çLrko çLrqr fd;k] çLrko vfof/kekU; ugha gks ldrk tc vfo‘okl çLrko ds fy, lfEeyu dh vf/k;kpuk dh lwpuk 12 O;fDr;ksa }kjk çLrqr dh xbZ gS vkSj vfo‘okl çLrko ij ^fopkj&foe‘kZ* fd;k x;k FkkA ¼iSjk 16½
vfo‘okl çLrko ij ^fopkj&foe‘kZ* fd;k x;k FkkA bldk vFkZ gS fd mifLFkr lnL;ksa dh lfØ; Hkkxhnkjh Fkh vkSj blls ;g ekuk tk,xk fd vfo‘okl çLrko ds i{k esa vFkok fojks/k esa tks dksbZ Hkh cksyuk pkgrk Fkk mls Hkkx ysus dk volj fn;k x;k FkkA tc fopkj&foe‘kZ fd;k x;k Fkk] ;g Li"V gS fd volj fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj ftl fdlh us Hkh ilan fd;k mls cksyus dk volj fn;k x;k FkkA bl çdkj] fu;e 5¼4½ dk vuqikyu gqvk FkkA cksyus ds volj ls fdlh dks oafpr ugha j[kk x;k FkkA ¼iSjk 17½
¼3½ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 91 rFkk 21¼4½&vfo‘okl çLrko ds ladYi ds fo#) iqujh{k.k&pyus ;ksX; ugha&ekeyk /kkjk 21¼4½ ds v/khu fookn ds :i esa lquk tk ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 5½
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku&vuq- 226 rFkk 227&oSdfYid mipkj&fjV ;kfpdk xzg.k fd, tkus ds fy, vkR;afrd otZu ugha gSA ¼iSjk 19½
1. Petitioner in the instant case seeks issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by Additional Collector Annexure P-5 setting aside the no-confidence motion contained in resolution Annexure P-3 passed by Gram Panchayat Khejari Lakhroni, Tehsil patharia on 5.12.2001 which was carried on by the majority of 12 against 4 Panchas.
2. Petitioner Sukhnandan Patel was Up-Sarpanch. While he was holding the office of Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khejari Lakhroni, Tehsil Path aria, District Damoh, a no-confidence motion was passed. The Collector is the competent authority to decide the dispute u/s 21(4) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1993). Shri Prabhudayal Patel, respondent No. 2 was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Khejar, Lakhroni against whom the no-confidence motion was passed on 5.12.2001. The petitioner and other Panchas were not satisfied with the activities of the Sarpanch Shri Prabhudayal Patel respondent no. 2, therefore, no-confidence motion was passed against him.
3. An application for requisition of meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion was made to the prescribed authority under Rule 3 of the M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Upsarpanch Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Viruddh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The prescribed authority after satisfying about the admissibility of the notice appointed Shri Hanif Qureshi as presiding officer as per order dated 21.11.2001 Annexure P-1. The prescribed authority has issued a letter Annexure P-2 appointing Shri Hanif Qureshi as presiding officer and also mentioned the time and place where the meeting for consideration of no, confidence motion was to take place as per order dated 21.1.2001.
4. A meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion was held on 5. 12.2001 in accordance with the provisions of Rules of 1994. The motion was moved and thereafter 'the members. were allowed to speak and on the conclusion of the debate the procedure for cast of the votes was explained and then votes were- polled and counted. 12 out of 16 persons voted in favour of. no-confidence motion and 4 against it. The presiding officer held that no-confidence motion was duly carried resulting in removal of Sarpanch.
5. The respondent No. 2-Sarpanch, aggrieved by the resolution of no-confidence motion, preferred a revision petition under section 91 of the Act,- 1993. In the revision, violation of rule 4 of the Rules 1994 was alleged. The Addl. Collector dismissed the revision petition on 21.1.2002. as not maintainable in view of the. provisions contained in 21(4) of the Act, 1993. The order passed by Addl. Collector .was challenged in W.P. No. 500/2002 before this Court. This Court remanded the matter with the direction to treat the revision petition to be a dispute u/s 21(4) of the Act. In view of the direction given by this Court. Collector decided it afresh on 30.3.2002 as per order Annexure P-8. The Collector has set aside the resolution of no-confidence motion on 30.3.2002 on the following grounds :
(1) That under rule 4 of No-Confidence Motion Rules, 1994, it was necessary to have intimated the Collector regarding appointment of presiding officer prior to 3 days of the meeting but intimation was not given to Collector.
(2) The presence of the Panch as was not recorded in the resolution.
(3) There was non-compliance of rule 5(3) as it does not appear from proceedings that any Panch was cal led upon to move the no-confidence motion at the time when meeting was held.
(4) The Sarpanch and Upsarpanch were not given opportunity to speak.
6. Petitioner submits that the Collector ought to have appreciated that the non-compliance of the provision of Rule 4 has not resulted in the failure of justice and no prejudice has been caused to any party to the no-confidence motion due to non-compliance of the Rule 4 of the Rules of 19
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
