Back
2000 (2) JLJ 253
(FULL BENCH)
D.M. Dharmadhikari, Dipak Misra and S.K. Kulshreshtha, JJ.
Bhulin Dewangan v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petn. No. 4709 of 1996; on reference made by Hon‘ble Dipak Misra, J.;
Decided on. 2.11.1999.
(2) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (M.P.) -- S. 21 -- no-confidence motion -- results in adverse consequence to elected Sarpanch and/or Up-Sarpanch -- to be moved and passed by requisite number of panchas -- principles of natural justice. have also been provided to the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch.
The subject matter dealt with in section 21 of the Act is passing of a no-confidence motion against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch. The above mentioned office bearers hold their office by election. The law requires that if they are made to vacate their offices on loss of confidence of the other elected members, there should be a requisite majority for passing the resolution, i.e. not less than 3/4th of the Panchas and the resolution should be carried by voting of more than 2/3rd of the total number of Panchas. Since the passing of no-confidence motion results in adverse consequence of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch vacating the elected office, the law incorporates the principle of natural justice that the office bearer concerned should have an opportunity to participate in the motion and to speak and take part in the proceedings so as to regain the confidence of the House. [Para 6
(3) Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (M.P.) -- R. 3 (3) -- prescribed authority is not allowed to sit over after receiving notice for no-confidence -- he is bound to call meeting within 15 days -- it shall also despatch notice of such meeting to every member before 7 days.
The legislative intent behind the rule dearly appears to be that when a notice of no-confidence motion duly signed by the requisite not less than 1/3rd of the total number of elected members of the concerned Panchayat is received, the prescribed authority shall not be allowed to sit idle over it for an unreasonable long period of time. It is enjoined on him that he shall within not more than 15 days from the receipt of the notice by him call a meeting for considering the no-confidence motion. [Para 7
The second part of subd`rule (3) of rule 3 mandates that the prescribed authority after fixing date, time and place of the meeting within the prescribed period not later than 15 days as laid down in the first part of the Rule, shall cause despatch of notice of such meeting to every member of the Panchayat 7 days before the meeting. The said latter part of subd`rule (3) of rule 3 of 1994 Rules is mandatory as intimation of date, time and place of meeting to every member is essential to ensure his presence, if he so desires, in the meeting to be held on such vital issue of passing of no-confidence motion. [Para 8
(4) Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (M.P.) -- R. 3(3) -- use of word ‘despatch‘ under -- is deliberate -- it cannot be read as receipt -- intention is not that motion can be taken after receipt of notice by every member provision is mandatory.
The use of the word ‘despatch‘ appears to be deliberate and it cannot be read as ‘receipt‘ of the notices by the members of the Panchayat.
The Rule does not convey any intention that the motion of no-confidence should be taken up only alter each and every member of the Panchayat has been actually served with the notice. Had the intention been such. it would have been easy for the legislature to have clearly said so by use of word ‘receipt‘ instead of the word ‘despatch‘ of notices 7 days in advance of the meeting. Use of word ‘despatch‘ in the Rule is clearly with a view that merely on non-service of notice of meeting on one or few members, the consideration of motion of no-confidence should not be frustrated.
If the motion is validly passed by the requisite majority, mere non-service of notice of meeting on one or more members would not render the passing of no-confidence motion invalid. The latter part of subd`rule (3) of rule 3 uses the words ‘shall be caused‘ indicating clearly that the rule is mandatory and requires due compliance. [Para 9
(5) Words and Phrases -- word ‘despatch‘ is analogous to word ‘issued‘ -- issuance of notice or despatching the same is sufficient. AIR 1993 SC 1488; AIR 1991 SC 2010 followed. [Para 11
(6) Panchayat(Method of Service of Notice and Documents) Rules, 1995 (M.P.) -- R. 3 -- M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 -- R. 3 (3),-- notice under R. 3 (3) of 1994 Rules -- should be served in accordance with R. 3 of 1995 Rules -- else there would be no proper compliance.
The despatch of notice for complying the provisions of latter part of subd`rule (3) of Rule 3 of 1994 Rules has to be in one of the prescribed modes indicated for service in the Rules of 1995. If the despatch of notices is not in the mode prescribed for its service. there would be no proper compliance of the requirement of subd`rule (3) of rule 3 of the Rules of 1994. [Para 12
(7) Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (M.P.) -- R. 3(3) -- requirement though mandatory -- may be waived by affected person -- authority or High Court may also see if any prejudice has been caused for want of compliance. 1997 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 49 and 1998 (1) JLJ 113 approved. [Para 15
(8) Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (M.P.) -- R. 3(3) -- mandatory requirement is to dispatch the notice to members before 7 days of meeting d`receipt of notice by members has not been contemplated. 1999 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 4, 1997 (2) JLJ 397. 1998 (1) JLJ 124, 1998 (1) JLJ 399. 1968 JLJ 125 and 1997 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 49 approved. 1997 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 284 partly approved. 1971 JLJ 286 overruled. [Paras 17 & 20
¼1½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && dkuwu esa iz;qDr ‘‘kCn **tk,xh** && lkekU; rFkk vkKkid ds :i esa vFkZ fd;k tkrk gS && mldk vFkkZUo;u ** tk ldsxh** Hkh fd;k tk ldrk gSA U;k- th-ih- flag —r fizfUliy vkQ LVsV~;wVjh baVjfizVs‘ku lIre laLdj.k i`"B 298 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 5À ¼2½ iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e] 1993 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 21 && vfo‘okl izLrko && fuokZfpr ljaip rFkk@vFkok miljiap ds izfr izfrdwyr% ifj.kkfer gksrk gS && iapksa dh visf{kr la[;k }kjk izLrkfor rFkk ikfjr fd;k tkuk gksrk gS && lajip vkSj miljiap ds fy, uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kar Hkh micaf/kr gSA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21 esa fopkj dh fo"k;oLrq ljiap vkSj miljaip ds fo#) vfo‘okl izLrko ikfjr fd;k tkuk gSA Åij mfYyf[kr ink/kkjh fuokZpu }kjk in /kkj.k djrs gSA fof/k }kjk visf{kr gS fd vU; fuokZfpr lnL;ksa dks fo‘okl ugha jgus ij ;fn mUgsa vius in fjDr djuk iM+rs gSa] ladYi ikfjr fd, tkus ds fy, visf{kr cgqer gksuk pkfg, vFkkZr~ iapksa ds 3@4 ls U;wu ugha vkSj ladYi] iapksa dh dqy la[;k ds 1@3 }kjk ikfjr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A D;ksafd vfo‘okl ikfjr gksus dk ifj.kke fuokZfpr in fjDr djus okys ljaip vkSj miljiap ds izfrdwy gksrk gS] fof/k }kjk uSlfxZd U;k; dk fl)kar varfoZ"V fd;k x;k gS fd lacaf/kr in/kkjh dks izLrko esa Hkkx ysus dk volj izkIr gks vkSj og dk;Zokgh esa cksy lds rFkk Hkkx ys lds fd og lnu dk fo‘okl iqu% izkIr dj ldsA ¿ iSjk 6À ¼3½ iapk;r ¼xzke iapk;r ds ljiap rFkk miljaip] 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 && vfo‘okl dh lwpuk izkIr djus ds i‘pkr~ fofgr izkf/kdkjh dk fuf"Ø; jguk vuqKkr ugha gS && 15 fnu ds Hkhrj lfEeyu cqykus ds fy, og ck/; gS && og ,sls lfEeyu dh lwpuk dh izR;sd lnL; dks 7 fnu iwoZ HkstsxkA bl fu;e ds ihNs ;g fo/kk;h vk‘k; Li"Vr% izrhr gksrk gS fd lacaf/kr iapk;r ds fuokZfpr lnL;ksa dh dqy la[;k ds 1@3 ls vU;wu visf{kr la[;k }kjk lE;d~ :i ls gLrk{kfjr vfo‘okl izLrko dh lwpuk tc izkIr gks tkrh gS] fofgr izkf/kdkjh bl ckjs esa v;qfDr;qDr yacs le; rd fuf"Ø; jguk vuqKkr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ml vfo‘okl izLrko ij fopkj fd, tkus ds fy, og lwpuk dh izkfIr ls 15 fnu ls vuf/kd le; ds Hkhrj lfEeyu cqyk,xk] blds fy, og vkfn"V gSA ¿ iSjk 7À ¼4½ iapk;r ¼xzke iapk;r ds ljiap rFkk miljaip] 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 && ‘‘kCn *izsf"kr* dk iz;ksx && foef‘kZr gS && bldk vFkZ *izkfIr* ds :i esa ugha fd;k tk ldrk && vk‘k; ;g ugha gS fd izR;sd lnL; dks lwpuk dh izkfIr ds i‘pkr~ izLrko ij fopkj fd;k tk,xk && mica/k vkKkid gSA ‘‘kCn *izsf"kr* dk iz;ksx foef‘kZr gS] bldk vFkZ iapk;r ds lnL;ksa }kjk lwpuk dh *izkfIr* ds :i esa ugha fd;k tk ldrkA fu;e esa ,slk vk‘k; izdV ugha gksrk fd vfo‘okl ds izLrko ij fopkj] iapk;r ds izR;sd lnL; ij lwpuk dh okLrfod :i ls rkehy gks tkus ij gh fd;k tk,A oSlk vk‘k; gksus dh n‘kk esa lfEeyu ds 7 fnu iwoZ ‘‘kCn izsf"kr ds LFkku ij *izkfIr* dk iz;ksx dj ds fo/kku&eaMy }kjk oSlk ‘‘kCn :i ls ljyrk ls dgk tk ldrk FkkA fu;e esa ‘‘kCn *izkfIr* dk iz;ksx Li"V :i ls bl –f"V ls fd;k x;k gS fd ek= ,d ;k dqN lnL;ksa ij lfEeyu dh rkehy ugha gksus ij vfo‘okl izLrko ij fopkj foQy ugha gksuk pkfg,A ;fn izLrko visf{kr cgqer }kjk fof/kekU; :i ls ikfjr gks tkrk gS] ek= ,d ;k vf/kd lnL;ksa ij lfEeyu dh lwpuk dh rkehy u gksus ls vfo‘okl izLrko ikfjr fd;k tkuk vfof/kekU; ugha gksxkA fu;e 3 ds mifu;e ¼3½ ds mÙkjorhZ Hkkx esa ‘‘kCn *izsf"kr djokbZ dh tk,xh* ‘‘kCnksa esa Li"Vr% minf‘kZr gS fd ;g mica/k vkKkid gS vkSj mldk lE;d~ :i ls vuqikyu visf{kr gSA ¿ iSjk 9À ¼5½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn *izsf"kr*] ‘‘kCn *tkjh* ds ln`‘k gS && lwpuk tkjh dh tkuk vFkok og izsf"kr dh tkuk i;kZIr gSA , vkb vkj 1993 ,l lh 1488 rFkk , vkb vkj 1991 ,l lh 2010 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 11À ¼6½ iapk;r ¼lwpuk rFkk nLrkost dh rkehy½ fu;e] 1995 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 3 e-iz- iapk;r ¼xzke iapk;r ds ljiap rFkk miljaip] tuin iapk;r rFkk ftyk iapk;r ds v/;{k rFkk mik/;{k ds fo#) vfo‘okl izLrko½ fu;e] 1994 && fu- 3¼3½ && 1994 ds fu;e 3¼3½ ds v/khu lwpuk && 1995 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 3 ds vuqlkj rkehy dh tkuk pkfg, && vU;Fkk mfpr vuqikyu ugha gksxkA 1994 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 3 ds mifu;e ¼3½ ds mÙkjorhZ Hkkx ds mica/kksa ds vuqikyu ds fy, lwpuk dk izs"k.k] 1995 ds fu;eksa ds rkehy ds fy, minf‘kZr fofgr <axksa esa ls ,d esa gksuk gksxkA ;fn lwpuk dk izs"k.k mldh rkehy ds fy, fofgr <ax ls ugha gksrk rc 1994 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 3 ds mifu;e ¼3½ dh mis{kkvksa dk mfpr vuqikyu ugha gksxkA ¼7½ iapk;r ¼xzke iapk;r ds ljiap rFkk miljaip] 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 && ;|fi vis{kk vkKkid gS && izHkkfor O;fDr }kjk vf/kO;Dr dh tk ldrh gS && izkf/kdkjh vFkok mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ns[kk tk ldrk gS ;fn vuqikyu ds vHkko esa izfrdwy izHkko dkfjr gqvk gksA 1997 ¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 49 rFkk 1998 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 113 vuqeksfnrA ¿ iSjk 15À ¼8½ iapk;r ¼xzke iapk;r ds ljiap rFkk miljaip] 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 && vkKkid vis{kk ;g gS fd lfEeyu ds lkr fnu iwoZ lnL;ksa dks lwpuk izsf"kr dh tk, && lnL;ksa }kjk lwpuk dh izkfIr vuq/;kr ugha gSA 1999 ¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 4] 1997¼2½ ts ,y ts 397] 1998 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 124] 1998 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 399] 1968 ts ,y ts 125 rFkk 1997 ¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 49 vuqeksfnrA 1997 ¼2½ fof/k HkkLoj 284 Hkkxr% vuqeksfnrA 1971 ts ,y ts 286 myVk x;kA ¿ iSjk 17 ,oa 20À
Dharmadhikari, J. -- (1) In the course of deciding this writ petition on merits which was filed to assail the 'No- Confidence Motion' passed against the petitioner as elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Koora, Hon. Justice Dipak Misra J., sitting singly found that in construing the provisions of section 21 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and analogous provisions of the repealed Act as also Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 framed thereunder have been differently construed in several Single Bench decisions of this Court (INFRA) and in these decisions earlier division bench decision of this Court in Gayasuddin v. Gram Panchayat (1971 JLJ 286) was not noticed. The learned Judge also found that the decision of this Court in Akbar Khan v. S.D.O. Mandleswar [(1997) 2 Vidhi Bhasvar 284] was not noticed in Sharda Bai v. State of M.P. [1998 (1) JLJ 399 = (1997) 2 MPLJ 291]. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has made this reference to the Full Bench for resolving the cleavage of opinions expressed by several benches of this Court on the import and effect of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Act and Sub-Rules (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules.
2. We have heard learned counsel Shri N.K. Shukla for the petitioner, Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Government Advocate for the State and its Authorities and Shri Ahadullah Usmani learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 15, 17 and 19. We have gone through the various decisions referred in the order of reference of the learned Single Judge and those cited at the bar. The sole question for consideration before us is one of general importance regarding the interpretation of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 of the M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (Shortly Referred as 1994 Rules) read with Section 21 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. The relevant provisions contained in Section 21 of the Act and Rule 3 including Sub-Rule (3) thereunder which are for interpretation before us need reproduction in full :-
"Section 21 of the Act: No-Confidence Motion against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch --
(1) On a motion of no-confidence being passed by the Gram Panchayat by a resolution passed by majority of not less than three fourth of the panchas present and voting and such majority is more than two third of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being, the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom such motion is passed, shall cease to hold office forthwith.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Rules made thereunder a Sarpanch or an Up-Sarpanch shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no-confidence is discussed against him. Such meeting shall be convened in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be presided over by an officer of the Government as the Prescribed Authority may appoint. The Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall have a right to speak at, or otherwise to take part in the proceeding of the meeting.
(3) 'No-confidence motion' shall not lie against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of –
(i) one year from the date on which the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch enter their respective office;
(ii) six months preceding the date on which the term of oft1ce of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch. as the case may be. expires;
(iii) one year from the date on which previous motion of no-confidence was rejected.
(4) If the Sarpanch or the Up-Sai"panch, as the case may be, desires to challenge the validity of the motion carried out under sub-section (1), he shall, within seven days from the date on which such motion was carried, refer the dispute to the Collector who shall decide it, as far as possible, within thirty days from the date on which it was received by him, and his decision shall be final. ".
"Rule 3 of the Rules is as under :-
3. Notice -- (1) Elected members of Gram Panchayat Janpad Panchayat or Zila P
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
