BALWANTSINGH Vs. COLLECTOR SHIVPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Garh on 31-7-1970. In a meeting of the Gram Panchayat held on 15-9-1970 a motion of no-confidence was passed against him. In pursuance of the said resolution he was directed to hand over charge of his office vide annexure 'g'. The contention of the petitioner is that the motion of no-confidence was not passed by the requisite majority and even otherwise it was not in accordance with law. It is, therefore, of no effect and the petitioner is entitled to continue in the office. He has therefore, filed this petition seeking a writ quashing the no-confidence motion passed on 15-9-1970.

(2.) THE Collector Shivpuri who is non-petitioner No. 1 has filed a return denying the claim of the petitioner. According to the facts stated in the return, the motion of no-confidence was duly passed and as a result thereof the petitioner has automatically ceased to hold the office of Sarpanch. The Secretary Gram Panchayat Garh, who has been joined as non-petitioner No. 2 has remained absent though served and has not filed any return.

(3.) THE first contention of the petitioner is that the motion of no-confidence was not passed by the requisite majority. It is stated in ground (a) of the petition that according to Section 24 of the M. P. Panchayats Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the motion has to be passed by a majority of not less than two-third of the Panchas present and voting, and as the motion was passed only by 10 phanchas while all the 18 Panchas were present it cannot be said to have been passed by the requisite majority. This contention was apparently based on Section 24 of the Act as it stood before the amendment. The section has, however, since been amended by the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Amendment and Validation)Act, 1970 (No. 3 of 1970 ). According to the amended section all that is required is that the motion should be passed by a majority of more than one-half of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being. It was not disputed before us that the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram panchayat at the material time was 18. As the motion was passed by a majority consisting of 10 Panchas it must be deemed to have been duly passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepted this position, but he contended that he was even challenging the fact that 10 Panchas had voted in favour of the motion and that this fact must be established by the other side.