Back
2002 (2) JLJ 41
Dipak Misra, J.
Rajaram Patel v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No. 3898 of 2001; Decided on 13.9.2001.
The election of respondent No.4 was declared void as a result of which a vacancy in the post of Sarpanch arose and in the bye-election, the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch. The first meeting was held on 6.8.2000. It is put forth that the term of the office-bearers of the Gram Panchayat is for five years from the date of the first meeting. It is pleaded that the petitioner‘s term will expire on 22.1.2002. It has been set forth that while he was performing his work in a satisfactory manner and there was no complaint against him and he was raising the issue of large scale corruption against the respondent No.4, he received a notice from the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), the respondent No.2, indicating that a motion of no-confidence has been moved by ten members of the Gram Panchayat. It is urged in the petition that the notice issued vide Annexure P-3 by the prescribed authority is illegal and unjustified as such a notice could not have been issued in view of the provisions enshrined under section 21 of the M.P. " Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. [Para 2
Held: The first notice was issued prior to six months and date of meeting was also fixed prior to six months. The said aspect is quite clear on a scrutiny of Annexure P-3. In this factual backdrop, I am of the considered opinion when notice of no-confidence was issued and the date was fixed before expiry of six months but the proceeding was stayed at the instance of the petitioner and ultimately he did not succeed in his effort, he cannot take the benefit of the said sub-section. It is canvassed by Mr. Kanojiya that it is not an adjourned meeting so that it can be held again. The aforesaid submission is only noted to be rejected inasmuch as the meeting could not have been adjourned for the simple reason that the petitioner had obtained the order of stay from the Collector. Under these peculiar circumstances, the mandate contained in the sub-section (3) of 21 of the Act would not be attracted. [Para 6
(2) Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- Ss. 21(3)(i), 20(1),18(1) and 38(1) -- no-confidence motion -- moved within one year from date of taking charge after bye-election -- date of first meeting of Gram Panchayat not same -- effective date for computation of one year is date of assumption of charge.
As far as entering into office is concerned, the effective date is when he actually assumes the charge. That assumption of charge is when he participates in his first meeting or holds his first meeting. As has been stated in the case at hand, the petitioner had assumed the charge on 6.8.2000. It is not disputed by Mr. Jha that first meeting of the petitioner was held 6.8.2000. By holding of such a meeting, his term does not get extended but indubitably the computation of one year as provided under section 21(3) would commence from that date. It is not disputed at the Bar that the first meeting was held on 6.8.2000 and the no-confidence motion was moved on 30.6.2001 and the SDO, Jabalpur fixed the meeting on 7.7.2001. In view of this, there remains no iota of doubt, the no-confidence motion was mooted within one year which could not have been done as envisaged under section 21(3) of the Act. [Para 9
(3) Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) - Ss. 20(2), 9 and 21(3) - term of office of Sarpanch and duration of Panchayat -- assumption of charge of office of Sarpanch in bye-election n is different from holding office for five years from first meeting of Panchayat -- first meeting of Panchayat governs term of the office only.
Entering into office and holding office for five years from the date of first meeting are two different concepts; one determines the maximum limit of the term and the other grants an immunity to an elected person. ... The first meeting has connection with the term of office and term of office has to be read with the concept of duration of Panchayat. Reading the aforesaid provision in a meaningful manner, one thing alone is clear that the duration of Panchayat and term of office and continuance of office-bearers is fixed for a period of five years and no one can continue beyond that period. [Para 9
(4) Constitution of India -- Art. 226/227 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 6 Rr. 1, 2 and 4 -- pleadings in writ petition -- non-mention‘ of relevant and essential facts within special knowledge of petitioner -- is suppression of material fact -- petition is liable to be dismissed. [Para 9
¼1½ iapk;r jkt ,oa Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 21¼3½ ¼nks½ && vfo‘okl izLrko && lfEeyu cqykus dh lwpuk] ljaip dh inkof/k ds volku ds fnukad ls iwoZorhZ Ng ekl iwoZ tkjh && ;kph&ljiap }kjk jksd vfHkizkIr && ckn esa dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ij /kkjk 21¼3½ ¼nks½ vk—"V ugha gksrhA
izR;FkhZ Ø-4 dk fuokZpu ‘kwU; ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;k ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i ljiap ds in es fjfDr mn~Hkwr gqbZ rFkk mi fuokZpu esa ;kph dks ljiap fuokZfpr fd;k x;kA izFke lfEeyu 6-8-2000 dks fd;k x;kA izfrikfnr gS fd xzke iapk;r ds in/kkfj;ksa dh inkof/k] izFke lfEeyu ds fnukad ds ik¡p o"kZ ds fy, gSA vfHkokd~ fd;k x;k gS fd ;kph dh inkof/k dk volku 22-1-2002 dks gksxkA izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd tc og viuk dk;Z lek/kkuiw.kZ jhfr ls dj jgk Fkk rFkk mlds fo#) dksbZ f‘kdk;r ugha Fkh vkSj og izR;FkhZ Ø- 4 ds fo#) O;kid Lrj ij Hkz"Vkpkj dk fook|d mBk jgk Fkk] mls izR;FkhZ Ø-2 mi[kaM vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ ls lwpuk izkIr gqbZ ftlesa minf‘kZr Fkk fd xzke iapk;r ds nl lnL;ksa }kjk vfo‘okl izLrko yk;k x;k gSA ;kfpdk esa crk;k x;k gS fd fofgr izkf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh lwpuk] mikca/k ih&3] voS/k rFkk vU;k;iw.kZ gS D;ksafd e-iz- iapk;r jkt ,oa xzke Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 dh /kkjk 21 esa izfr"Bkfir mica/kksa dh –f"V ls ,slh lwpuk tkjh ugha dh tk ldrh FkhA ¿ iSjk 2À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izFke lwpuk Ng ekl iwoZ tkjh dh xbZ Fkh rFkk lfEeyu dk fnukad Hkh Ng ekl iwoZ fu;r fd;k x;k FkkA mDr igyw mikac/k ih&3 dh laoh{kk ls i;kZIrr% Li"V gSA bl rkfF;d i`"BHkwfe esa] esjh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd tc Ng ekl dh vof/k ds volku ls iwoZ vfo‘okl dh lwpuk tkjh dh xbZ Fkh rFkk fnukad fu;r fd;k x;k Fkk ijarq ;kph dh izsj.kk ij dk;Zokgh jksd nh xbZ vkSj varr% og vius iz;Ru esa lQy ugha gqvk] rc og mDr mi/kkjk dk Qk;nk ugha ys ldrkA Jh duksft;k }kjk cgl dh xbZ gS fd ;g LFkfxr lfEeyu ugha Fkk ftlls mls iuq% cqyk;k tk ldsA iwoksZDr fuosnu ij dsoy [kkfjt fd, tkus ds fy, /;ku fn;k tk jgk gS D;ksafd lfEeyu dsoy bl dkj.k LFkfxr ugha fd;k tk ldk Fkk fd ;kph us dyDVj ls jksd vkns‘k vfHkizkIr dj fy;k FkkA bu fof‘k"V ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21 dh mi/kkjk ¼3½ esa varfoZ"V vkKk vk—"V ugha gksxhA ¿ iSjk 6À
¼2½ iapk;r jkt ,oa Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 21¼3½ ¼,d½ && 20¼1½] 18¼1½ rFkk 38¼1½ && vfo‘okl izLrko && mipquko ds i‘pkr~ in&Hkkj xzg.k ds fnukad ls ,d o"kZ ds Hkhrj && xzke iapk;r ds izFke lfEeyu dk fnukad vyx&& ,d o"kZ dh lax.kuk ds fy, izHkoh fnukad] inHkkj xzg.k djus dk fnukad gSA
tgk¡ rd in xzg.k djus dk laca/k gS] izHkkoh fnukad og gS tc og okLro esa inHkkj xzg.k djrk gSA inHkkj dk og xzg.k rc gksrk gS tc og vius izFke lfEeyu esa Hkkx ysrk gS vFkok viuk izFke lfEeyu vk;ksftr djrk gSA tSlk izLrqr ekeys eas dFku fd;k x;k gS] ;kph us Hkkj 6-8-2000 dks xzg.k fd;k FkkA Jh >k }kjk fookfnr ugha gS fd ;kph dk izFke lfEeyu 6-8-2000 dks gqvk FkkA ,slk lfEeyu vk;ksftr dj mldh inkof/k esa o`f) ugha gksrh ijarq /kkjk 21¼3½ ds v/khu ;Fkk micaf/kr ,d o"kZ dh lax.kuk vlafnX/k :i ls ml fnukad ls vkjaHk gksxhA U;k;ky; esa ;g fookfnr ugha gS fd izFke lfEeyu 6-8-2000 dks gqvk Fkk rFkk vfo‘okl izLrko 30-6-2001 dks yk;k x;k Fkk rFkk mi[kaM vf/kdkjh] tcyiqj us lfEeyu 7-7-2001 dks fu;r fd;k FkkA bl –f"V ls fdafprek= lansg ugha jgrk fd vfo‘okl izLrko ,d o"kZ ds Hkhrj izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] tSlk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21¼3½ ds v/khu ifjdfYirkuqlkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk FkkA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼3½ iapk;r jkt ,oa Lojkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 20¼2½ 9 rFkk 21¼3½ && ljiap ds in dh inkof/k rFkk iapk;r dk dk;Zdky & mi pquko eas ljiap ds in Hkkj dk xzg.k && iapk;r ds izFke lfEeyu ls ik¡p o"kZ ds fy, in /kkj.k djus ls fHké gS && iapk;r ds izFke lfEeyu ls dsoy in dh inkof/k fofu;fer gksrh gSA
in xzg.k djuk rFkk lfEeyu ds fnukad ls ik¡p o"kZ rd in /kkj.k djuk] nks fHké ladYiuk,¡ gS( ,d ls dk;kZof/k dh vf/kdre lhek vo/kkfjr gksrh gS rFkk nwljs ls fuokZfpr O;fDr dks mUeqfDr iznÙk gksrh gSA----- izFke lfEeyu dk laca/k in dh vof/k ls gS rFkk in dh vof/k dks iapk;r ds dk;Zdky dh ladYiuk ds lkFk i<+k tkuk gksrk gSA */kkjk 21¼3½ dk vFkZiw.kZ ikB djus ij dsoy ,d&gh ckr Li"V gksrh gS fd iapk;r dk dk;Zdky vkSj in dh vof/k rFkk in/kkfj;ksa dks fujarj jguk] ik¡p o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, fu;r gS rFkk dksbZ Hkh ml vof/k ls ijs fujarj ugha jg ldrkA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226@227 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 6 fu- 1] 2 rFkk 4 && fjV ;kfpdk esa vfHkopu && ;kph dhs fo‘ks"k tkudkjh ds Hkhrj vkus okys lqlaxr rFkk vfuok;Z rF;ksa dk vuqYys[k && lkjoku~ rF; dks fNikuk gS && ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tk ldrh gSA ¿ iSjk 6À
1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for calling for the entire records of the proceeding before the prescribed authority pertaining to the issuance of the notice for motion of no-confidence and further to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Annexure P-3 and to pass such order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The facts as have been portrayed in the writ petition are that the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Tilhari Panchayat, District Jabalpur as the said post fell vacant in the year 2000. The election for the member of the Gram Panchayat was held on 11.12.1996 in which the respondent No.4 was elected as the Sarpanch and he assumed office on 23.1.1997 when the prescribed authority convened the first meeting under section 20 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the term of the Panchayat is five years commencing from the date of the first meeting. The election of respondent No.4 was declared void as a result of which a vacancy in the post of Sarpanch arose and in the bye-election, the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch. The first meeting was held on 6.8.2000. It is put forth that the term of the office-bearers of the Gram Panchayat is for five years from the date of the first meeting. It is pleaded that the petitioner's term will expire on 22.1.2002. It has been set forth that while he was perfoming his work in a satisfactory manner and there was no complaint against him and he was raising the issue of large scale corruption against the respondent No.4, he received a notice from the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), the respondent No.2, indicating that a motion of no-confidence has been moved by ten members of the Gram Panchayat. It is urged in the petition that the notice issued vide Annexure P-3 by the prescribed authority is illegal and unjustified as such a notice could not have been issued in view of the provisions enshrined under section 21 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (Act 1 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3. This Court, by order dated 18.8.2001, directed the copy of the writ petition to be served on the learned Deputy Advocate General and directed the meeting relating to motion of no-confidence shall take place but the result of the same shall not be given effect to. The matter was finally heard on 28.8.2001.
4. Mr. R.P. Kanojiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the language employed under-section 21 of the Act is read in proper perspective, the Annexure P-3 is absolutely invalid inasmuch as the motion of no-confidence cannot lie within a period of six months preceding the date on which the term of the Sarpanch expires and, further, not within one year from the date on which the Sarpanch enters office. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Bhulin Dewagan v. State of M.P. and others [2002(2) JLJ 253 = 2001(2) MPLJ 372].
5. Mr. R.S. Jha, learned Dy. A.G. has submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands inasmuch as the meeting was fixed prior to six months from the date of expiry of the term but the petitioner moved the Collector and obtained an order of stay and after the Collector was apprised of the fact-situation, he rejected the revision petition. It is urged by him, thereafter the competent authority issued a notice vide Annexure P-3, but the petitioner has not whispered even a single word in regard to the aforesaid aspect and hence, he is not entitled to any relief from this Court in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction. The learned Dy. A.G. has further submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to move a forum and get the proceeding stayed and avail the benefit of six months. It is further urged by him that the period of one year as envisaged under section 21 of
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
