1984 Supreme(MP) 5

J. S. Verma and C. P. Sen, JJ.
Balramdas v. Commissioner, Raipur.
M. P. No. 1405 of 1982 (J); Decided on 5-1-1984.

Headnote:Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1987 (M. P.) -- S. 18 (c) -- S. 18 (c) -- right to speak in meeting of no-confidence -- is not an empty formality for Sarpanch concerned -- right is meant to give his point of view to dissuade Panchas from voting against him.

        Respondent No. 3 was Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khilora in Tahsil and District Raipur. A motion of no confidence was moved against him. A meeting to discuss the motion was convened on 12-10-1981 at 12.00 noon, However, the Presiding Officer for that meeting did not turn up at the scheduled time. Respondent No. 3. Kaniram Banjare, and some other Panchas are alleged to have then left at about 12.30 p.m. under the impression that the convened meeting would not be held on account of the absence of the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer appeared later at 12.40 p.m., the same date and held the meeting, in which the remaining· ten Panchas participated. The motion of no confidence was passed by these remaining ten Panchas against respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3, feeling aggrieved by the resolution passed in this manner, complained to the authorities. The District Panchayat and Welfare Officer, respondent No. 2, accepted the contention of respondent No. 3 and made the order "Annexure-B" dated 29-3-1982 recommending suspension of the resolution. The Commissioner, Raipur Division, respondent No. 1, then passed the order "Annexure-C" dated 8th Sept. 1982 setting aside the resolution on the ground that it was invalid. The petitioners have then filed this petition fur quashing the orders "Annexure-B" and "Annexure-C" passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively.

        Held : The meeting was convened on 12-10-1981 at 12.00 noon, but the Presiding Officer did not turn up till 12.30 p.m., as a result of which, respondent No. 1, the Sarpanch as well as some other Panchas left under the impression that the meeting would not be held that date. It was only thereafter at 12.40 pm. that the Presiding Officer appeared and held the meeting with the remaining ten Panchas, who had remained behind without making any attempt to intimate the respondent No. 3 and the other Panchas who had gone away on account of the absence of the Presiding Officer at the scheduled time. Section 18 (c) of the M. P. Panchyat Adhiniyam, 1981 confers a right on the Sarpanch to speak at or otherwise to take part in the proceeding of the meeting in which a motion of no confidence is discussed against him. This right is not an empty formality, inasmuch as, it enabled the Sarpanch to give out his point of view and, if possible, to dissuade the Panchas from voting against him. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 was deprived of this opportunity available to him under the law, as the meeting was not held in the manner it was convened, with the result that the Sarpanch, respondent No. 3 as well as some other Panchas, who are entitled to appear and participate in the same, were unlawfully denied that opportunity. A resolution passed in these circumstances is, therefore, clearly invalid. This being so, there is no ground to interfere in this petition with an order, which takes the same view, merely on the basis of some technicality. Petition dismissed.