PATEL KETANBHAI DAHYABHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing immediately.

(2.) PETITIONER nos. 1 and 2 were the President-cum-Chief-Counsellor and Vice-President-Cum-Counsellor of the District Panchayat for Daman and Diu. They were elected as the President and Vice president of the District Panchayat in October, 2005. According to the petitioners, the District Panchayat had in all 34 members comprising of 20 directly elected memebers and 14 Chair-persons of Village panchayats. One of the members, who was chair-person of a Village panchayat resigned on 16. 9. 2009. On 29. 9. 09 a proposal was submitted by some members for passing 'no Confidence Motion' against the petitioners to remove them from the post of President and Vice-President respectively. Accordingly, on 30. 9. 2009 the Chief Executive officer issued a notice and convened meeting on 9. 10. 2009 to consider the 'no Confidence Motion'. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 raised certain objections. However, the meeting was held on 9. 10. 2009. It was attended by only 21 members. Out of them 17 members voted for No Confidence motion and only 4 objected. As a result 'no Confidence Motion' was declared to be carried and passed against the petitioners. According to the petitioners, as per the provisions of Regulation 7, the total number of seats in the District Panchayat is 34 and 'no Confidence Motion' could be carried by majority of the total number of members of the Panchayat. In view of this, taking into consideration the total number of seats and the members of the panchayat being 34, 'no Confidence Motion' could be carried and passed only if 18 members would have voted for 'no confidence Motion' but as only 17 members had voted for the No confidence Motion, it could not be treated to have been carried and passed by majority of the total number of members. It is contended that there is no provision for passing any No Confidence Motion against the president-cum-Chief Counsellor and Vice President-cum Counsellor of the Panchayat in the Regulations and therefore, The Daman and Diu district Panchayat (Motion of No Confidence against President-cum-Chief Councillor and Vice-President-cum-Councillor) Rules, 1997 (Hereinafter referred to as 'rules') providing for 'no Confidence motion' against President and Vice-President are ultra vires the provisions of the Regulations. Hence, the Rules are liable to be declared illegal and contrary to the Daman and Diu Village Panchayats (Amended)Regulation, 1994" (Hereinafter referred to as "regulations" ). They also prayed for quashing and setting aside the 'no Confidence Motion' passed on 9. 10. 2009 by the District Panchayat under the Rules.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the Parties.