SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(MP) 208

TEJ SHANKAR
Lakhan Singh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
M.P.S. Raghuvansi for petitioner; R.K. Vashishtha, Addl. Advocate
General for respondents.

ORDER

1. The petitioner is admittedly an Elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Aabas, Tehsil Karera, District Shivpuri (M.P.). On 4.2.98 some members of the Gram Panchayat, Aabas submitted a notice for calling a meeting of no confidence against him The competent Authostity on being satisfied fixed 19.2.98 as the date for meeting which has been annexed as Annexure P-2. The Respondent No.3 was appointed as Presiding Officer to preside over the meeting of no- confidence. But before the date fixed he adjourned the meeting for 5.3.98 illegally and against the provisions of law. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the order Annexure P-1 dated 19.2.98 and also prayed for a direction to the respondents not to conduct the meeting of no-confidence- against him for the further period of one year."

2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha up-Sarpanch, Janapad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh A vishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), a notice is necessary to be given under clause (1) of this rule. Clause- 3 provides









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top