Back
2003(2) JLJ 182
Bhawani Singh, C.J. and S.L. Jain, J.
Prabhu Dayal Patel v. State of M.P. and another
L.P.A. No. 389 of 2002: against the order of Single Bench passed in
W.P. No. 1916 of 2002: Decided on 8.7.2002.
The appellant Prabhudayal Patel was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Khejra Lakhrouni, against whom resolution of no-confidence motion was passed on 5.12.2001. 12 out of 16 persons voted in favour of no-confidence motion and four persons voted against it. The Presiding Officer held that no-confidence motion was duly carried out resulting in removal of the appellant from the post of Sarpanch.
Aggrieved by the resolution of no-confidence motion, the appellant preferred a revision petition under section 91 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. 1993. In the revision, it was alleged that no-confidence motion was carried in violation of rule 4 of the Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Viruddh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994. The Additional Collector dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in section 21 (4) of the Act. The validity of this order of Additional Collector was challenged in Writ Petition No. 500/2002. This Court remanded the matter with a direction to treat the revision petition to be a dispute under section 21(4) of the Act. In compliance of these directions, the Collector decided the matter and set aside the resolution of no-confidence motion. .. Against this order of the Collector, the respondent No.2 filed a writ petition which was decided by learned Single Judge vide the order impugned dated 14.5.2002 and the order passed by the Collector was quashed holding that no-confidence motion was validly passed against the appellant, therefore, he has no right to hold office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It is against this order that the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal. [Pa.ras 2 & 3
Held: The requirement of sending information to the Collector is only directive and not mandatory. The non-performance of such a duty did not work injustice. Setting aside the no-confidence motion due to non-compliance of such a provision which caused no prejudice in any manner, should not affect the validity of the resolution which was passed by overwhelming majority. It would be undemocratic to keep a person on the post of Sarpanch when he has lost by overwhelming majority. 1975 JLJ 386, 1983 JLJ SN 19, 1985 JLJ 522, 1997(I) Vidhi Bhasvar 49 and 1996 JLJ 335 relied on. [Paras 6 & 7
(2) Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- Ss. 21(4) and 91 -- revision petition not found maintainable -- may be treated as dispute under S. 21(4). [Para 3
(3) Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Viruddh A vishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (M.P.) -- R. 5 – meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion -- presence of panchas recorded in resolution in prescribed column -- it is substantial compliance. [Para 8
(4) 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.) -- R. 5(3) -- panchas voted after due deliberation -- not asking any panch to move motion is immaterial-- no case of non-compliance of this rule made out. [Para 9
(5) 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.) -- R. 5(4) -- Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 -- S. 21(2) -- opportunity to speak given to all members present -- appellant could very well speak against no-confidence motion -- rule duly complied with.. [Para 10
(6) Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S. 21 (4) -- order passed by Collector under -- revision before Commissioner is maintainable -- such alternative remedy does not bar exercise of extraordinary powers of High Court under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India
.
Against an order passed by the Collector under section 21(4) of the Act, revision before the Commissioner is maintainable. But availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to maintain a writ petition. When the impugned order is illegal, a writ petition is maintainable despite the fact that alternative remedy is available, more particularly, when in the facts and circumstances of the case, for hyper-technical reasons, the resolution of no-confidence motion is nullified by the Collector and allowed a person to occupy office, despite having been thrown out by no-confidence motion. W.P. No. 3045 of 2001 relied on. [Para 11
¼1½ 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- 4&mica/k&dsoy funs‘kkRed gS&vfo‘okl lfEeyu dh v/;{krk ds fy, ihBklhu vf/kdkjh fu;qDr&fuqfDr dh lwpuk dyDVj dks ugha Hksth xbZ&,slh fuf"d;rk ls vfo‘okl dk ladYi nwf"kr ugha gksrkA vihykFkhZ çHkqn;ky iVsy xzke iapk;r [kstjk y[kjkSuh dk ljiap Fkk ftlds fo#) 5-12-2001 dks vfo‘okl çLrko dk ladYi ikfjr fd;k x;kA 16 O;fDr;ksa esa 12 us vfo‘okl çLrko ds i{k esa ernku fd;k rFkk 4 us mlds fo#) ernku fd;kA ihBklhu vf/kdkjh us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd fo‘okl çLrko lE;d~:is.k ikfjr gqvk ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i vihykFkhZ ljiap ds in ls gVk;k x;kA vfo‘okl çLrko ds ladYi ls O;fFkr vihykFkhZ us e/; çns‘k iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 dh /kkjk 91 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k vthZ çLrqr dhA iqujh{k.k esa vfHkdFku fd;k x;k Fkk fd vfo‘okl çLrko 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 ds fu;e 4 ds vfrØe.k esa ikfjr gqvk FkkA vij dyDVj us vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21¼4½ esa varfoZ"V mica/kksa dh n`f"V ls iqujh{k.k vthZ pykus ;ksX; ugha gksus ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt dj nhA vij dyDVj ds bl vkns‘k dh fof/kekU;rk fjV ;kfpdk Ø-500@2002 esa vkf{kIr dh xbZA bl U;k;ky; }kjk ekeyk] iqujh{k.k vthZ dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21¼4½ ds v/khu fookn ekuus ds funs‘k ds lkFk] çfrçsf"kr dj fn;k x;kA bu funs‘kksa ds vuqikyu esa dyDVj us ekeyk fofuf‘pr fd;k rFkk vfo‘okl çLrko dk ladYi vikLr dj fn;kA ---dyDVj ds bl vkns‘k ds fo#) çR;FkhZ Ø-2 us fjV ;kfpdk Qkby dh ftls fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k us vkf{kIr vkns‘k fnukad 14-5-2002 }kjk fofuf‘pr fd;k rFkk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gq, fd vihykFkhZ ds fo#) vfo‘okl çLrko fof/kekU;r% ikfjr gqvk Fkk blfy, mls xzke iapk;r ds ljiap dk in xzg.k djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSa] dyDVj }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k vfHk[kafMr dj fn;kA blh vkns‘k ds fo#) vihykFkhZ us ;g ysVlZ isVsaV vihy Qkby dh gSA ¿iSjk 2 ,oa 3 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % dyDVj dks lwpuk Hkstus dh vis{kk dsoy funs‘kkRed gS] vkKkid ughaA ,sls drZO; dk fuoZgu ugha fd, tkus ls vU;k; ugha gqvkA ,sls mica/k ds vuuqikyu ds dkj.k] ftldk fdlh Hkh çdkj dk çfrdwy çHkko ugha iM+k] vfo‘okl çLrko dh vikfLr ls] Hkkjh cgqer ls ikfjr ladYi dh fof/kekU;rk çHkkfor ugha gksuk pkfg,A tc og Hkkjh cgqer ls gkj x;k gks rc fdlh O;fDr dks ljiap ds in ij j[kuk vyksdrkaf=d gksxkA 1975 ts ,y ts 386] 1983 ts ,y ts ,l ,u 19] 1985 ts ,y ts 522] 1997¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 49 rFkk 1996 ts ,y ts 335 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 6 ,oa 7 ¼2½ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 21¼4½ rFkk 91&iqujh{k.k vthZ pykus ;ksX; ugha vfHkfu/kkZfjr&/kkjk 21¼4½ ds v/khu fookn ekuk tk ldrk gSA ¿iSjk 3 ¼3½ 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-5&vfo‘okl çLrko ij fopkj ds fy, lfEeyu&ladYi esa fofgr dkye esa iapksa dh mifLFkfr vfHkfyf[kr&ikZIr vuqikyu gSA ¿iSjk 8 ¼4½ 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- 5¼3½≦d :i ls fopkj djus ds i‘pkr~ iapksa us ernku fd;k&fdlh iap dks çLrko is‘k djus ds fy, ugha dguk egRoghu gS&bl fu;e ds vuuqikyu dk i{kdFku fl) ughaA ¿iSjk 9 ¼5½ 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- 5¼4½&e-ç- iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993&/kkjk 21¼2½&cksyus dk volj lHkh mifLFkr lnL;ksa dks fn;k x;k&vihykFkhZ vfo‘okl çLrko ds fo#) Hkyh&Hkk¡fr cksy ldrk Fkk&fue dk lE;d vuqikyu gqvkA ¿iSjk 10 ¼6½ iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 21¼4½&dyDVj }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k&vkqDr ds le{k iqujh{k.k pykus ;ksX; gS&,sls vkuqdfYid mipkj ls mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuq- 226@227 ds v/khu vlk/kkj.k ‘kfDr;ksa dk ç;ksx oftZr ugha gksrkA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21¼4½ ds v/khu dyDVj }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k ds fo#) vk;qDr ds le{k iqujh{k.k pykus ;ksX; gSA ijarq vkuqdfYid mipkj dh miyC/krk ls fjV ;kfpdk pykus dk vkR;afrd otZu ugha gksrkA tc vkf{kIr vkns‘k voS/k gks rc bl rF; ds gksrs gq, Hkh fd vkuqdfYid mipkj miyC/k gS] fjV ;kfpdk pykus ;ksX; gS] fof‘k"Vr% tc ekeys ds rF;ksa vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] dyDVj }kjk vfo‘okl çLrko dk ladYi vfr&rduhdh dkj.kksa ls ‘kwU; dj fn;k x;k gks rFkk vfo‘okl çLrko }kjk fudky fn, tkus ds ckotwn fdlh O;fDr dks in dk vf/kHkksx j[kus fn;k gksA fjV ;kfpdk Ø-3045 lu~ 2001 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 11
Jain, J. -- 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14.5.2002 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1916/2002, the appellant, respondent in the writ petition, has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent.
2. Facts, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal are stated thus:
The appellant Prabhudayal Patel was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Khejra Lakhrouni, against whom resolution of 'no-confidence motion' was passed on 5.12.2001. 12 out of 16 persons voted in favour of 'no-confidence motion' and four persons voted against it. The Presiding Officer held that no-confidence motion was duly carried out resulting in removal of the appellant from the post of Sarpanch.
3. Aggrieved by the resolution of 'no-confidence motion', the appellant preferred a revision petition under section 91 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the revision, it was alleged that no-confidence motion was carried in violation of rule 4 of the 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 Rules of 1994'). The Additional Collector dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in section 21(4) of the Act. The validity of this order of Additional Collector was challenged in Writ Petition No. 500/2002. This Court remanded the matter with a direction to treat the revision petition to be a dispute under section 21 (4) of the Act. In compliance of these directions, the Collector decided the matter and set aside the resolution of 'no-confidence motion' on the grounds that:
(1) No intimation regarding appointment of Presiding Officer was given to the Collector.
(2) The presence of Panchas was not recorded in the proceedings.
(3) No Panch was called upon to move the no-confidence motion as required by Rule 5(3) of the Rules of 1994; and
(4) Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch were not given opportunity to speak. Against this order of the Collector, the respondent No.2 filed a writ petition which was decided by learned Single Judge vide the order impugned dated 14.5.2002 and the order passed by the Collector was quashed holding that 'no-confidence motion' was validly passed against the appellant, therefore, he has no right to hold office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It is against this order that the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.
4. We have heard Shri Mohammad Ali, for the appellant. Shri P.D. Gupta, Dy. Advocate General, for State and Shri Mani Kant Sharma, for respondent-2 (Caveator).
5. The contentions raised by the appellant in this appeal are the same as were raised before the Collector.
6. The first contention is that it was obligatory for the prescribed authority to inform the Collector of the district about the appointment of the Presiding Officer to preside over the meeting of the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of considering 'no-confidence motion' but no such information was given to the Collector. The learned Single Judge considered certain judgments reported in Shankerlal Patidar v. State of M.P. and others (1975 JLJ 386 = 1975 MPLJ 116), Motilal Ramchandra v. Gram Panchayat. Jamburdisarwar (1983 JLJ SN 19 = 1983 MPLJ, SN 8), Bal Krishna Patel v. Brijendra Patel and others
(1985 JLJ 522 = 1985 MPLJ 332), Jagdish Prasad Bhujwa v. State of M.P. and others [1996 JLJ 335 = 1997(I) MPLJ 512] and Dhumadandhin w/o Bundsai v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [1997(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 49 = 1997(2) MPLJ 175] and concluded that the mere non-sending of information to the Collector regarding appointment of Presiding Officer under Rule 4 cannot nullify the resolution of 'no-confidence motion' carried by majority.
7. We find no reason to take a different view. The requirement of sending information to the Collector is only directive and not mandatory.The non
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
