A no-confidence motion passed against a Sarpanch beyond 15 days from the date of notice is not necessarily illegal if the members who gave the notice had no control over the delay and the Sarpanch did not challenge the notice or demonstrate prejudice.

C.K. Prasad, J.

1. The petitioner was a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Govindpur who has filed this writ application for quashing no confidence motion dated 16-11-1995 passed against her.

2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Govindpur and the said election took place in the month of June 1994. A notice to consider the no confidence motion dated 29-9-1995 was received by the prescribed authority on 26-10-1995. The prescribed authority on receipt of the aforesaid notice appointed one Naib Tahsildar as the Presiding Officer to preside over the meeting and date of the meeting fixed by the prescribed authority was 16-11-1995. It is on the said date the motion of no confidence was considered against the petitioner and the motion was passed by a majority as prescribed Under Section 21 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Act.

3. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner to impugn the motion of no confidence is that the date of meeting fixed for consideration of the motion of no confidence, is beyond 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, given by the members for consideration of the no confidence motion. It is admitted fact that the notice of no confidence dated 29-9-1995 was received by the prescribed authority on 26-10-1995, who has fixed 16-11-1995 as the date for consideration of the no confidence motion. This is definitely beyond 15 days from the receipt of the notice. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 3(3) of M.P. Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Upsarpanch Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav Niyam, 1994, contemplates that the prescribed authority shall fix the date, time and place for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat which shall not be more than 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said notice. Rule 3(3) of the aforesaid Rules which is relevant for the purpose is being quoted below :-

"Rule 3(3) - On receiving the notice under Sub-rule (1) the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to Sections 21(3), 28(3) and 35(3), as the case may be. On being thus satisfied, he shall fix the date, time and place for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, which shall not be more than fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The notice of such meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof shall be caused to be despatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting."

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the prescribed authority has convened the meeting on a date which is beyond 15 days of the date of receipt of the notice. According to the learned counsel no confidence motion passed on the said date, is in violation of the rule, which vitiates the no confidence motion. In support of the aforesaid submission learned counsel has placed reliance on a Judgment of this Court in the case of Hargovirid Johari v. Zila Panchayat, Morena, 1996 MPLJ 409. My attention has been drawn to the following paragraph of the Judgment which read as under :-

"14. Thus, I am of the view :-

(i) that, the Rules of 1994 are materially different from the statutory provisions which were under consideration before the Division Bench in Shankarlal's case, 1975 MPLJ 190 = 1975 JLJ 500 and

(ii) that, the Rules of 1994 and more particularly Rule 5 indicated a detailed procedure and no provision is made for adjournment of a meeting and even if it be conceded that the view expressed in Shankarlal's case (supra) that such a meeting can be adjourned even then in view of the provisions contained in Rule 3(3) of Rules, 1994, this meeting could not be adjourned beyond a period of fifteen