RAJARAM PATEL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for calling for the entire records of the proceeding before the prescribed authority pertaining to the issuance of the notice for motion of no -confidence and further to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Annexure P -3 and to pass such order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE facts as have been portrayed in the writ petition are that the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Tilhari Panchayat, District Jabalpur as the said post fell vacant in the year 2000. The election for the member of the Gram Panchayat was held on 11.12.1996 in which the respondent No.4 was elected as the Sarpanch and he assumed office on 23.1.1997 when the prescribed authority convened the first meeting under section 20 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the term of the Panchayat is five years commencing from the date of the first meeting. The election of respondent No.4 was declared void as a result of which a vacancy in the post of Sarpanch arose and in the bye -election, the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch. The first meeting was held on 6.8.2000. It is put forth that the term of the office -bearers of the Gram Panchayat is for five years from the date of the first meeting. It is pleaded that the petitioner's term will expire on 22.1.2002. It has been set forth that while he was perfoming his work in a satisfactory manner and there was no complaint against him and he was raising the issue of large scale corruption against the respondent No.4, he received a notice from the Sub -Divisional Officer (Revenue), the respondent No.2, indicating that a motion of no -confidence has been moved by ten members of the Gram Panchayat. It is urged in the petition that the notice issued vide Annexure P -3 by the prescribed authority is illegal and unjustified as such a notice could not have been issued in view of the provisions enshrined under section 21 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (Act 1 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(3.) MR . R.S. Jha, learned Dy. A.G. has submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands inasmuch as the meeting was fixed prior to six months from the date of expiry of the term but the petitioner moved the Collector and obtained an order of stay and after the Collector was apprised of the fact -situation, he rejected the revision petition. It is urged by him, thereafter the competent authority issued a notice vide Annexure P -3, but the petitioner has not whispered even a single word in regard to the aforesaid aspect and hence, he is not entitled to any relief from this Court in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction. The learned Dy. A.G. has further submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to move a forum and get the proceeding stayed and avail the benefit of six months. It is further urged by him that the period of one year as envisaged under section 21 of the Act has to be computed from the date of the first meeting.