AYODHYA Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the question that arises for decision-making in both the writ petitions is identical, they are clubbed, heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE Petitioner is the Vice President of Janpad Panchayat, Masturi for a term of five years from 2005 to 2009. It appears that the Respondents Nos. 6 to 25 who are the Members of Janpad Panchayat, Masturi submitted a 'no confidence motion' to the Additional Collector, Bilaspur District, the 3 rd Respondent herein. THE 3rd Respondent taking cognizance of the said 'no confidence motion' has convened the meeting of Janpad Panchayat on 24th April, 2006. Feeling aggrieved by the above action of the 3rd Respondent, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) SECTION 28 of the Adhiniyam deals with 'no confidence motion' against President or Vice President of Janpad Panchayat. SECTION 28 itself does not prescribe as to who is the competent authority to convene a meeting of Janpad Panchayat to consider 'no confidence motion' against President or Vice President. Sub-section (2) of SECTION 28 of the Adhiniyam states that meeting to consider 'no confidence motion' shall be convened in such a manner as may be prescribed and shall be presided over by an officer of the Government as the 'Prescribed Authority'. The term "Prescribed Authority" is defined in Clause (xxi) of SECTION 2 of the Adhiniyam which reads as follows: (xxi) " 'Prescribed Authority' in any provision of this Act means such officer or authority as the State Government may, by notification, direct to discharge the functions of a prescribed authority under that provision.