GAURI BAI Vs. STATE OF C.G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 2nd of April, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C). No. 34/2008, whereby the writ petition filed by Respondents 13 to 17 was allowed and the resolution of no-confidence motion was held to have been passed by the Gram Panchayat against the Appellant, who was holding the post of Sarpanch.

(2.) THE back-ground facts in a nutshell are as follows: THE Appellant was the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bhawanipur. Out of 16 members constituting the Gram Panchayat, 12 members submitted a notice of no-confidence motion against the Appellant before the prescribed authority i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baloda Bazar on 06.8.2007. THE prescribed authority, after being satisfied, directed to convene a meeting of the members of the Gram Panchayat and fixed the date of 27.8.2007 to consider the said motion. Naib Tahsildar, Palari, was appointed as Presiding Officer for the above meeting to consider the no-confidence motion against the Appellant. THE meeting was convened on 27.8.2007 in which all the 16 members of Gram Panchayat, including the Appellant Sarpanch, participated and the said motion of no confidence was carried out with the ratio/majority of 12: 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid motion carried out against the Appellant, she made a reference under Section 21(4) of the M.P (C.G) Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to Addl. Collector, who heard the reference and set aside the motion on the ground that Rule 3(3) of THE Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 1994') was not complied as the meeting was convened beyond the period of 15 days of the submission of the notice of the no-confidence motion, therefore, passing of the no-confidence motion, against the Appellant, in such meeting was bad in law.

(3.) MS. Sunita Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, has argued that the provisions of Rule 3(3) are mandatory, therefore, noncompliance of said provision vitiates the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat, in which, the motion of no-confidence was passed against the Appellant.