Back
2003(1) JLJ 65
Dipak Misra, J.
Hariwat Tekam (Smt.) v. State of M.P. and others
WP. No. 4885 of 2001; Decided on 23.10.2001.
The seminal issue that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the issuance of notice contained in Annexure A-7 fixing the date for no-confidence motion is valid in law and if there is any impropriety/illegality in issuance of the said notice does it vitiate the entire action that ensues on foundation of the such notice. ... It is put-forth that the said notice though has been stated to have been issued on 21.9.2001, has actually been issued on 23.9.2001 in clear contravention of the provisions enshrined under M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Upsarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President and Vice President Ke Viruddh Avishvas Prastav) Rules, 1994 inasmuch as there has been no seven clear days gap between date of dispatch and date of holding of the meeting. It is also set forth that the Collector has not stated the date when he had received the complaint and from h9w many members as a result of which the petitioner is unable to point out whether the impugned notice was issued between fifteen days of receipt of complaint. Allegations have been made that none of the members had any information regarding the meeting pertaining to no-confidence motion but the information was given on 24.9.2001 nearly four days before the date of meeting. With the aforesaid averments prayer has been made for quashing of the Annexure A-7 and any action taken in furtherance thereof. [Para 2
Held: It is plain as noon day that the notice has to be dispatched seven days in advance of the meeting. The Full Bench has also dealt with the mode and opined that if the dispatch of the notice is not done within time there would be no proper compliance of the requirement of subd`rule (3) of rule 3 of the Rules. 2000(2) JLJ 253 (FB) relied on. [Para 11
(2) Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Upsarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President and Vice-President Ke Viruddh Avishvas Prastav) Rules 1994 (M.P.) -- R. 3(3) -- prescribed authority is under obligation to convene meeting of no-confidence motion within fifteen days -- such meeting can be adjourned for reasons beyond the control of prescribed authority. 1999(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 4 relied on. WP No. 657/97, AIR 1967 SC 684 and Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes referred to. [Paras 11 & 12
(3) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.) -- S. 43-A -- meeting of no-confidence motion -- notice to every councillor is mandatory -- moving of no-confidence motion by an elected councillor is basic requirement for progress of meeting -- petitioner participating in meeting cannot claim relief on ground of non-compliance of even mandatory provisions. AIR 1999 MP 197 relied on. AIR 1966 SC 330 followed. [Para 13
(4) Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Upsarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President and Vice-President Ke Viruddh A vishvas Prastav) Rules 1994 (M.P.) -- R. 3(3) -- mandatory requirements of notice prescribed in the interest of a person -- may be waived by him -- Courts may refuse to interfere where. no substantial prejudice is caused by not strict compliance. 2000(2) JLJ 253 relied on. [Para 14
(5) Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Upsarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President and Vice-President Ke Viruddh A vishvas Prastav) Rules 1994 (M.P.) -- R. 3(3) -- President against whom no-confidence motion moved taking active part in meeting -- addressing the meeting on every point -- disputing allegations against her -- no prejudice caused even if there was some irregularity in service of notices. 1999(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 4 and 1984 MPWN 336 relied on. [Paras 14 & 15
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 izLrko½ fu;e] 1994 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 3¼3½ && lwpuk] lfEeyu ds lkr fnu iwoZ Hksth tkuk gksrh gS && lwpuk le; ds Hkhrj ugha Hksth xbZ && vis{kk dk leqfpr vuqikyu ugha gksxkA
bl ;kfpdk esa fopkj fd, tkus ds fy, tks izkjafHkd iz‘u mn~Hkwr gksrk gS og gS fd D;k mica/k ,&7 esa varfoZ"V vfo‘okl izLrko dk fnukad fu;r djus okyh lwpuk fof/k dh n`f"V ls fof/kekU; gS vkSj ;fn mDr lwpuk tkjh fd, tkus esa dksbZ vukSfpR;@voS/krk gS] D;k blls ,slh lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij ifj.kkfer laiw.kZ dkjZokbZ nwf"kr gks tkrh gSA --- ;g miLFkkfir fd;k x;k gS fd mDr lwpuk ;|fi 21-9-2001 dks tkjh dh tkuk dfFkr gS] okLro esa 23-9-2001 dks tkjh dh xbZ gS] e-iz- 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 izLrko½ fu;e] 1994 esa izfr"Bkfir mica/kksa ds Li"V mYya?ku esa gS D;ksafd Hksts tkus ds fnukad vkSj lfEeyu fd, tkus dh rkjh[k ds chp lkr fnu dk Li"V varj ugha gSA ;g Hkh crk;k x;k gS fd dyDVj us og fnukad mfYyf[kr ugha fd;k gS tc mlus f‘kdk;r izkIr dh vkSj fdrus lnL;ksa ls izkIr dh ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i ;kph ;g minf‘kZr ugha dj ldrk fd D;k vkf{kIr lwpuk] f‘kdk;r izkIr gksus ds ianzg fnu ds chp esa tkjh dh xbZ FkhA vfHkdFku fd, x, gSa fd fdlh Hkh lnL; dks fo‘okl izLrko ls lacaf/kr lfEeyu ds ckjs esa dksbZ bfÙkyk ugha Fkh vfirq og bfÙkyk 24-9-2001 dks lfEeyu ds fnukad ds yxHkx pkj fnu iwoZ nh xbZ FkhA iwoksZDr izdFkuksa ds lkFk mikca/k ,&7 vkSj mlds vxzlj.k esa dh tkus okyh fdlh dkjZokbZ ds vfHk[kaMu dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ gSA ¿ iSjk 2
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g e/;kà dh Hkk¡fr Li"V gS fd lwpuk] lfEeyu ds lkr fnu iwoZ Hksth tkuk gksrh gSA iw.kZU;k;ihB us jhfr dk Hkh foospu fd;k gS vkSj jk; nh gS fd ;fn lwpuk le; ds Hkhrj ugha Hksth tkrh gS] fu;eksa ds fu;e 3 ds mifu;e ¼3½ dh vis{kk dk leqfpr vuqikyu ugha gksxkA 2000¼2½ ts ,y ts 253 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 11
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 izLrko½ fu;e] 1994 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 3¼3½ && fofgr izkf/kdkjh] vfo‘okl izLrko dk lfEeyu ianzg fnu ds Hkhrj cqykus ds fy, ck/;rk/khu gS && ,slk lfEeyu fofgr izkf/kdkjh ds fu;a=.k ls ijs dkj.kksa ls LFkfxr fd;k tk ldrk gSA 1999¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 4 voyafcrA fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 657@97] , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 684 rFkk eSDlosy d`r baVjfizVs‘ku vkWQ LVsV~;wV~l fufnZ"VA ¿ iSjk 11 ,oa 12
¼3½ 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 izLrko½ fu;e] 1994 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 43&d && vfo‘okl izLrko dk lfEeyu && izR;sd ik"kZn dks lwpuk vkKkid gS && vfo‘okl izLrko fdlh fuokZfpr ik"kZn }kjk is‘k fd;k tkuk lfEeyu vxzlj gksus ds fy, vk/kkjHkwr vis{kk gS && lfEEyu esa Hkkx ysus okyk ;kph vkKkid mica/kksa ds vuuqikyu ds vk/kkj ij Hkh vuqrks"k dk nkok ugha dj ldrkA , vkb vkj 1999 e-iz- 197 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1966 ,l lh 330 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 13
¼4½ 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 izLrko½ fu;e] 1994 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 3¼3½ && lwpuk dh vkKkid vis{kk fdlh O;fDr ds fgr esa fofgr && mlds }kjk vf/kR;tu fd;k tk ldrk gS && tc vfrfu;efu"B vuqikyu ugha gksus ls dksbZ lkjoku izfrdwy izHkko dkfjr ugha gqvk gS] U;k;ky; gLr{ksi ls bUdkj dj ldrk gSA 2000¼2½ ts ,y ts 253 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 14
¼5½ 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 izLrko½ fu;e] 1994 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 3¼3½ && v/;{k }kjk ftlds fo:) vfo‘okl izLrko izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] lfEeyu esa lfØ; Hkkxhnkjh && lfEeyu esa izR;sd fcanq ij Hkk"k.k && vius fo:) vfHkdFkuksa dk [kaMu && dksbZ izfrdwy izHkko ugha] Hkys&gh lwpukvksa dh rkehy esa dqN vfu;ferrk gqbZ FkhA 1999¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 4 rFkk 1984 e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 336 voyafcrA ¿ isjk 14 ,oa 15
1. Sustainability of the notice dated 21.9.2001, Annexure A-7, issued by the Chief Executive ,Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mehandwani, respondent No.4, herein, has been called in question in this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the same. There is further prayer for issuance of direction for detail enquiry to be conducted in relation to the selection process of contract teachers by any in dependant authority and to pass such other order/direction as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Facts as have been depicted in the writ petition are that the petitioner was elected as President of Janpad Panchayat, Mahendwani, Dindori. The respondent No 3 was elected as Vice President of the said Janpad Panchayat. Certain assertion have been made with regard to election and appointment of contract teachers which need not be referred to for the purpose of present writ petition in as much as the seminal issue that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the issuance of notice contained in Annexure A-7 fixing the date for no-confidence motion is valid in law and if there is any impropriety/illegality in issuance of the said notice does it vitiate the entire action that ensues on foundation of the such notice. Bereft of assertions relating to the selection process of the teachers and the feud that took place between the petitioner and others, the essential aspects which need adumbration are that the motion of no confidence was mooted against the petitioner which led to issuance of notice by the Chief Executive Officer vide Annexure A-7. It is put-forth that the said notice though. has been stated to have been issued on 21.9.2001, has actually been issued on 23.9.2001 in clear contravention of the provisions enshrined under M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Upsarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President and Vice President Ke Viruddh Avishvas Prastav) Rules 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') inasmuch as there has been no seven clear days gap between date of dispatch and date of holding of the meeting. It is also set forth that the Collector has not stated the date when he had received the complaint and from how many members as a result of which the petitioner is unable to point out whether the impugned notice was issued between fifteen days of receipt of complaint. Allegations have been made that none of the members had any information regarding the meeting pertaining to no-confidence motion but the information was given on 24.9.2001 nearly four days before the date of meeting. With the aforesaid averments prayer has been made for quashing of the Annexure A-7 and any action taken in furtherance thereof.
3. By order dated 27.9.2001 this Court directed issuance of notice and as an interlocutory measure further directed that the meeting scheduled to be held on 28.9.2001 in pursuance of notice contained in Annexure A-7 would be held but the result thereof would not be given effect to till the next date.
4. During the pendency of this case an application was filed by some of the members of the Janpad Panchayat to intervene in the matter. An application was filed for calling of the entire records on the basis of which the notice, annexure A-7 was issued.
5. This Court considering the submissions, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties directed requisition of the records from the Collector, Dindori. Collector, Dindori produced certain records on the date of hearing which indicated that he had sent the notice to the Chief Executive Officer. He had not produced the record to show when the Chief Executive Officer had dispatched the notices. It is pertinent to mention here the concerned SDO in whose presence the meeting was held had produced the relevant record of the proceeding relating to no-confidence motion.
6. I have heard Mr. R.N. Singh, lea
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
