MOHAN SINGH Vs. RATAN SINGH KUSHWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed the aforesaid petition challenging the validity of the order Annexure P -1 dated 24.9.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena in exercise of powers conferred on him under section 28 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 was Vice -President of the Janpad Panchayat and a motion of no -confidence was moved against the respondent No.1 vide Annexure P -2 signed by 18 persons. The motion was moved under the provisions of section 28 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and after the aforesaid motion was moved, SDO Shri H.B. Singh was appointed as Presiding Officer to preside over the meeting to be held for consideration of no -confidence motion on 24.9.2002.

(3.) REFUTING the aforesaid Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contends that the petitioner as Vice. President and Member of the Selection Committee who was required to conduct selection procedure for the purpose of appointment of Samvida Shala Shikshak by the Panchayat had made serious complaints against the SDO Shri H.B. Singh. It is the case of the said respondent that for the purpose of getting his son and daughter appointed as teachers in the Panchayat, Shri Singh had misused his power and because of that the petitioner had made complaint against Shri Singh. Not only was a complaint filed against Shri Singh for the aforesaid, the petitioner had filed a public interest litigation bearing W.P. No. 1405/01 before this Court which was disposed of on 31.8.2001. Thereafter when Shri Singh was appointed as Presiding Officer for conducting the meeting vide Annexure P -3 the petitioner had made a complaint to the Collector on 21.9.2001 and raised objection against the appointment of. Shri Singh as Presiding Officer. It is the case of the said respondent that the entire meeting in which the motion of no -confidence was considered was vitiated because the said meeting was interfered by the Presiding Officer Shri Singh and he misused his office to see that the no -confidence motion is passed and respondent No.1 is removed from his office. In all, the case of respondent No.1 is that the no -confidence motion was passed in a meeting which was presided over by a person who was highly biased and prejudiced against him and on this aspect being established, the Commissioner has interfered and set aside the resolution passed in the no -confidence motion. It is submitted by Shri Sharma that the Commissioner having exercised jurisdiction vested in him under Statute and having recorded a finding wherein bias is established no case for interference by this Coul1 is made out in a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. .