GAYASUDDIN KHAN Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT TAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Gayassuddin Khan was validly elected Sarpanch of village Kasba Tal, pargana Sironj, district Vidisha. On 17-7-70 a meeting was convened under the orders of the District Panchayat officer, Vidisha. THE order was passed on 22 6-70. Information about the said panchayat meeting was given by the Panchayat officer to all members. In this Mteting there was a resolution of no confidence against the petitioner In- spite of his various objections raised in accordance with the Panchayat Act and Rules the resolution was passed THE petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings of the said meeting by this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. According to the petitioner the meeting suffered from the following defects: (i) Under the rules a meeting to consider the motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch has to be convened in the manner prescribed under the rules. Notice of such a resolution is to be given in the prescribed form to the Secretary in advance, whereupon he has to fix the meeting after giving 7 clear days' notice to all the members mentioning the time, place and purpose. This rule has not been observed. (ii) Yusuf Ali, the Up-sarpanch was not served for the said meeting with any notice. Basal Khan, Pooran and Khemchand were also not served, but they were brought on oral request in the meeting. 3. THE Secretary of the Gram Panchayat representing the Gram Panchayat has filed a return. THE Secretary has admitted about the non-service on the Up-sarpanch and also about the non-service on Basal Khan, Pooran and Khemchand. 4. Under section 24 of the M. P. Panchayats Act "on a motion of no confidence being passed by the Gram Panchayat by a resolution passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the Panchas present and voting and such majority is more than one half of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being, the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom such motion is passed, shall cease to hold office with effect from the date immediately next after the date on which such motion is passed." In the instant case it is clear that out of 17 members, 16 were present. Twelve of them voted for no confidence. THEre cannot be any doubt that the no confidence motion was validly passed, if we look to the number of persons present and the number voted. 5. THE contention is that the meeting itself which parsed the resolution was invalid as it was not convened according to law. Rules have been framed for passing no confidence motion against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch which is called M. P. Gram Panchayats (No confidence Motion Against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch), Rules 1964. THE following rules are of importance in this connection:

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner the meeting suffered from the following defects: (i) Under the rules a meeting to consider the motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch has to be convened in the manner prescribed under the rules. Notice of such a resolution is to be given in the prescribed form to the Secretary in advance, whereupon he has to fix the meeting after giving 7 clear days' notice to all the members mentioning the time, place and purpose. This rule has not been observed. (ii) Yusuf Ali, the Up-sarpanch was not served for the said meeting with any notice. Basal Khan, Pooran and Khemchand were also not served, but they were brought on oral request in the meeting.

(3.) THE contention is that the meeting itself which parsed the resolution was invalid as it was not convened according to law. Rules have been framed for passing no confidence motion against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch which is called M. P. Gram Panchayats (No confidence Motion Against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch), Rules 1964. THE following rules are of importance in this connection: