( 1. ) INVOKING the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the notice dated 22-9-2001, Annexure P-3, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-competent authority, the respondent No. 2 herein, calling for meeting for no-confidence motion, against the petitioner on 5-10-2001 and to pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

( 2. ) THE facts as have been unfolded are that the petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Paharia, Block and Tehsil Pali, District Umaria. A motion of no-confidence was mooted against by some of the Panchs and on the basis of their requisition the competent authority fixed the meeting on 3-9-2001 in the office of the Gram Panchayat Paharia, Block and Tehsil Pali in the District of Umariya. The competent authority appointed the Naib Tehsildar, Pali, the respondent No. 3, herein, as the Presiding Officer of the meeting. As pleaded on the date fixed the meeting was convened and no-confidence motion was initiated by the Presiding Officer. The ward members of the Gram Panchayat boy-catted the motion of no-confidence as a result of which the motion failed and the Presiding Officer passed the decision in that regard as contained in Annexure P-2. Despite of the failure of the no-confidence motion the respondent No. 2 issued a notice for initialing a fresh proceeding and fixed the date to 5-10-2001.

( 3. ) IT is urged in the writ petition that action of the respondent No. 2 is impermissible in law as per the Section 21 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Section 21 (3) clearly stipulates that no-confidence motion shall not lie against the Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch within a period of one year from the date of which the previous motion of no-confidence was rejected.

( 4. ) A return has been filed by the respondents contending, inter alia, that the meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion was called on 3-9-2001 but on the said date the no-confidence motion was not considered which is apparent from the finding recorded by the Presiding Officer. The order passed by the prescribed authority has been brought on record as Annexure P-1. It is further putforth that the proceeding which has been recorded by the respondent No. 3 clearly demonstrates that the motion was not moved and in fact which was required to take place under Section 21 of the Act did not happen and hence, it can not be construed that motion of no-confidence was rejected.

( 5. ) I have heard Mr. S. K. Garg, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. D. Gupta, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State.

( 6. ) IT is submitted by Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the petitioner that unless a motion is passed by the members present and a resolution is drawn up it is to be presumed that the motion of no-confidence was rejected. It is canvassed by him that as the members did not participate in the meeting and boy-cotted the same there can be only one irresistible conclusion that the motion of no-confidence did not meet with the success and such an event would come within Section 21 (3) of the Act and, therefore, no further no-confidence motion could be initiated against the petitioner within a period of one year as the same has been prohibited in the statute.

( 7. ) COMBATTING the aforesaid submissions Mr. Gupta, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State has urged that the documents which have been brought on record would go a long way to show that the meeting did not take place as there was some discussion by the Presiding Officer in relation to grant of permission to a member who arrived late and, therefore, the members being dissatisfied with decision of the Presiding Officer left the meeting place and in a circumstance like this it can not be presumed that the meeting was held