Back
2001 Supreme(MP) 840
2002(2) JLJ 423
Dipak Misra, J.
Geeta Bai (Smt.) and another v. Smt. Sushila Bai and others
W.P. No. 4604 of 2001. Decided on 13.12.2001.
S.L. Saxena with Sanjay Bakshi for petitioners;
Ravish Agrawal with Pranay Verma for respondent No. 1;
Sanjay Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for State.
Headnote:(1) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- Ss. 21 and 21-A -- provisions under -- can co-exist together -- there is separate field to operate for both -- S. 21 has not been impliedly repealed by insertion of S. 21-A -- purpose of and period laid down in both the provisions are also different.
(2) Interpretation of Statutes -- two provisions in existence -- having no incompatibility or disharmony -- both should. he allowed their full play and one cannot abrogate the other.
The respondent No. 1 raised a dispute before the Collector, Raisen, under section 21(4) of the Act and the said authority, by order impugned, came to hold that as the respondent No. 1 was a directly elected Sarpanch, he could only be recalled under section 21-A of the Act and could not have been removed by the motion of no-confidence. Being of this view, he annuled the motion of no-confidence, as a consequence of which the respondent No. 1 started functioning as the Sarpanch.
It is urged that section 21 of the Act provides removal of a Sarpanch by motion of no-confidence and as steps were taken under the said provision, interference by the Collector was totally unwarranted. It is putforth that section 21-A was inserted in the Statute Book by Act No.5 of 1999 which came into force on 5.4.1999 granting power to members of the Gram Sabha to recall the office bearers of Gram Panchayat through a secret ballot by a majority of more than half of the total number of the members constituting Gram Sabha within the Gram Panchayat in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed but the said provision does not obtrude or infringe upon the provision that has been vocalized and spelt out under section 21 of the Act. [Paras 4 & 5
Held: On a plain reading of both the provisions, it is crystal clear that one relates to the internal functioning of the Gram Panchayat where ‘panchas‘ may be aware of certain mal-functioning of the Sarpanch and may not desire his continuance in the office, and then the question of motion of no-confidence arises. The other one is a step taken by a dissatisfied and disillusioned Gram Sabha. The time period provided is also different and the Legislature in its wisdom has provided two different periods. The purpose of deliberating all these is that the two provisions are quite distinct. Both of them being in the Statute Book, it cannot be said that one has to be taken recourse to, being a later provision and the other one has to be abandoned and buried because it was an earlier one. The later one does not cause the natural death of the earlier provision. It does not even create an accedia. Such an interpretation would have found favour, had there been substitution or the language employed under section 21-A of the Act would have been couched in a different manner to connote a meaning that there has been implied repeal of section 21 of the Act. I may hasten to add, I have not dealt with whether section 21 of the Act is ultra vires or intra vires. I have only dealt with the aspect, when both the provisions are in existence in the Statute book and there is no incompatibility or disharmony between the two, they have to be allowed their full play and one cannot abrogate the other.
In view of my preceding analysis, the opinion expressed by the Collector that action could only have been taken under section 21-A of the Act is absolutely pregnable and does not stand scrutiny by this Court. [Paras 14 & 15
¼1½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfue;] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 21 rFkk 21&d && mica/k && lg&vfLrRo gks ldrk gS && nksuksa ds izorZu ds {ks= i`Fkd~ gS & /kkjk 21&d ds var%LFkkiu }kjk /kkkjk 21 ijks{kr% fujflr ugha dh xbZ gS && nksuksa mic/akks dk iz;kstu rFkk muesa vf/kdfFkr vof/k Hkh fHké&fHké gSaA
¼2½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && nks mica/k fo|eku && nksuksa csesy vFkok valxr ugha && nksuksa dk gh iw.kZ izorZu gksuk pkfg, rFkk ,d mica/k nwljs dk fujk—r ugha dj ldrkA
izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 us dyDVj] jk;lsu ds le{k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21¼4½ ds v/khu fookn mBk;k rFkk mDr izkf/kdkjh us vkf{kIr vkns‘k }kjk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd D;ksafd izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 lh/kk fuokZfpr ljaip Fkk] blfy, mls dsoy vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21&d ds v/khu okil cqyk;k tk ldrk Fkk rFkk vfo‘okl izLrko }kjk ugha gVk;k tk ldrk FkkA ;g –f"Vdks.k gksus ds dkj.k mUgksaus vfo‘okl izLrko ckfry dj fn;k ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i izR;FkhZ Ø- 1 us ljiap ds :i esa dk;Z djuk vkjaHk dj fn;kA
vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21 esa vfo‘okl izLrko }kjk ljiap dks gVkus dk mic/ak gS rFkk ;g dne mDr mica/k ds v/khu mBk, tkus ds dkj.k dyDVj }kjk gLr{ksi iw.kZr% vokaNuh; FkkA crk;k x;k gS fd /kkjk 21&d 1999 ds vf/kfu;e Ø- 5 }kjk dkuwu eas var%LFkkfir dh xbZ Fkh tks 5-4-1999 dks izo`Ùk gqbZA blds }kjk xzke lHkk ds lnL;ksa dks ;Fkk fofgr izfØ;k ds vuqlkj xzke iapk;r ds varxZr lHkk xfBr djus okys lnL;kssa dh dqy la[;k ds vk/ks ls vf/kd cgqer }kjk xqIr ernku ds ek/;e ls xzke iapk;r ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks okil cqykus dh ‘kfDr iznÙk dh xbZ gSA ijarq mDr mica/k ls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21 ds v/khu eq[kfjr rFkk foU;Lr mica/k esa gLr{ksi vFkok mldk vfrya?ku ugha gksrkA
¿ iSjk 4 ,oa 5À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % nksuksa mic/kksa ds ljy ikB ls lqLi"V gS fd ,d xzke iapk;r ds vkarfjd fØ;kdyki ls lacaf/kr gS tgk¡ iapkssa dks ljiap ds dfri; vi—R;ksa dh tkudkjh gks rFkk mUgsa mls ml in ij cus gus nsus dh bPNk ugha gks] rc vfo‘okl izLrko dk iz‘u mn~Hkwr gksrk gSA nwljk vlarq"V rFkk Hkax&eksg xzke lHkk }kjk mBk;k tkus okyk dne gSA micaf/kr le;kof/k Hkh fHké gS] fo/kku&eaMy us izKkuiwoZd nks fHké vof/k;k¡ micaf/kr dh gSA bu lc ij fopkj djus dk iz;kstu ;g gS fd nksuksa mica/k fcYdqy lqfHké gSA dkuwu esa nksuksa gh gksus ds dkj.k ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ,d vkJ; gksus ds dkj.k ifjR;Dr dj Hkwyk nsuk gksrhA iwoaZrj mica/k] i‘pkr~orhZ mica/k esa iwoZrj mica/k dh uSlfxZd e`R;q dkfjr ugha gksrhA iwoZrj mcia/k] i‘pkr~orhZ mica/k esa lfEefyr Hkh ugha gksrkA ,slk fuoZpu leFkZuh; gksrk ;fn izfrLFkkiuk gksrh vFkok esa lfEefyr Hkh ugha gksrkA ,slk fuoZpu leFkZuh; gksrk ;fn izfrLFkkiuk gksrh vFkok vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21&d esa iz;qDr Hkk"kk fHké gksrh ftlls ;g vFkZ fudyrk fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21 dk ijks{k fujlu gks x;k gSA eSa ;g Hkh rqjar crkuk pkgrk gw¡ fd eSaus bl ij ppkZ ugha dh gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21 vf/kdkjkrhr gS vFkok izkf/kdkj ds v/khuA eSaus dsoy bl igyw ij ppkZ dh gS] rc mu nksuksa dk gh iw.kZ izorZu gksuk pkfg, rFkk ,d mica/k nwljs dks fujk—r ugha dj ldrkA
esjs iwoZorhZ fo‘ys"k.k dh –f"V ls] dyDVj }kjk vfHkO;Dr ;g jk; fd dkjZokbZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21&d ds gh v/khu dh tk ldrh Fkh] iw.kZr% Hks| gS rFkk bl U;k;ky; dh laoh{kk dh dlkSVh ij [kjh ugha mrjh gSA ¿ iSjk 14 ,oa 15À
1. The centrodial issue that has spiralled to this Court in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India pertains to challenge of the order dated 28.8.2001, Annexure P-l, passed by the Collector, Raisen, in exercise of power conferred on him under section 21 (4) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby the said authority has declared that the motion of no confidence mooted against the respondent No.1, the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Khairbada, District, Raisen, by the Ward Members is void.
2. The factual 'expose' is as follows:
Gram Panchayat, Khairbad was established under section 10(1) of the Act consisting of two villages, namely, Khairbada and Jeerabada. Entire area of the said Gram Panchayat was divided into 10 wards and a Panch was elected from each ward. The office of the Sarpanch was reserved for a woman candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste. The respondent No. 1 contested in the election for the post of Sarpanch held in the month of February, 2000 and was elected by the Members of the Gram Sabha and entered into office of the Sarpanch on 3.2.2000. As the 'Panchas' of the Panchayat were dissatisfied and disillusioned with the performance of the respondent No.1, they moved a motion of no confidence after expiry of one year of the entering into the office of the respondent No. 1 and requested the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bareli, to appoint a Presiding Officer to convene a meeting. Consequent upon such request, the Sub-Divisional Officer directed the Tahsildar, Bareli to preside over the meeting to be held on 16.6.2001. The meeting was held on the date fixed and on that date after due discussion a motion of no confidence was put to vote. Ten members voted in favour of the motion and the respondent No.1 was the sale person to counter it. The motion was passed by more than 3/4th of the members present and voted by more than 2/3rd of the total strength of the elected members of the Gram Panchayat. The motion of no confidence came into force immediately and the office of Sarpanch fell vacant. Thereafter, a request was made to the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Prescribed Authority, Bareli to hold a meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Khairbada for taking appropriate and suitable steps to elect the Sarpanch, who has to function temporarily till the new Sarpanch is elected in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
3. According to the writ petitioners, a meeting was held on 28.6.2001 in which all the Panch as were present who unanimously ejected the petitioner No. 1 to function temporarily as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Khairbada. A copy of the memo of the said meeting was sent to the District Election Officer, Raisen by the Prescribed Authority, as per Annexure P-5. The petitioner No.1 entered into the office of Sarpanch with effect from 2.7.2001 and started functioning as the Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat. The petitioner No. 1 as averred is a woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste and is eligible to be elected as Sarpanch under section 38 of the Act.
4. It is putforth in the writ petition that when the matter stood thus, the respondent No. I raised a dispute before the Collector, Raisen, under section 21(4) of the Act and the said authority, by order impugned, came to hold that as the respondent No. 1 was a directly elected Sarpanch, he could only be recalled under section 21-A of the Act and could not have been removed by the motion of no confidence. Being of this view, he annuled the motion of no confidence, as a consequence of which the respondent No. 1 started functioning as the Sarpanch.
5. It is urged that section 21 of the Act provides removal of a Sarpanch by motion of no-confidence and as steps were taken under the said provision, interference by the Collector was totally unwarranted. It is put forth that section 21-A was inserted in the Statute Book by Act No.5 of 1999 which came into force on 5.4.19
