HARIWAT TEKAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUSTAINABILITY of the notice dated 21.9.2001, Annexure A -7, issued by the Chief Executive ,Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mehandwani, respondent No.4, herein, has been called in question in this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the same. There is further prayer for issuance of direction for detail enquiry to be conducted in relation to the selection process of contract teachers by any in dependant authority and to pass such other order/direction as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) FACTS as have been depicted in the writ petition are that the petitioner was elected as President of Janpad Panchayat, Mahendwani, Dindori. The respondent No 3 was elected as Vice President of the said Janpad Panchayat. Certain assertion have been made with regard to election and appointment of contract teachers which need not be referred to for the purpose of present writ petition in as much as the seminal issue that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the issuance of notice contained in Annexure A -7 fixing the date for no -confidence motion is valid in law and if there is any impropriety/illegality in issuance of the said notice does it vitiate the entire action that ensues on foundation of the such notice. Bereft of assertions relating to the selection process of the teachers and the feud that took place between the petitioner and others, the essential aspects which need adumbration are that the motion of no confidence was mooted against the petitioner which led to issuance of notice by the Chief Executive Officer vide Annexure A -7. It is put -forth that the said notice though. has been stated to have been issued on 21.9.2001, has actually been issued on 23.9.2001 in clear contravention of the provisions enshrined under M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Upsarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President and Vice President Ke Viruddh Avishvas Prastav) Rules 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') inasmuch as there has been no seven clear days gap between date of dispatch and date of holding of the meeting. It is also set forth that the Collector has not stated the date when he had received the complaint and from how many members as a result of which the petitioner is unable to point out whether the impugned notice was issued between fifteen days of receipt of complaint. Allegations have been made that none of the members had any information regarding the meeting pertaining to no -confidence motion but the information was given on 24.9.2001 nearly four days before the date of meeting. With the aforesaid averments prayer has been made for quashing of the Annexure A -7 and any action taken in furtherance thereof.

(3.) DURING the pendency of this case an application was filed by some of the members of the Janpad Panchayat to intervene in the matter. An application was filed for calling of the entire records on the basis of which the notice, annexure A -7 was issued.