SADAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 21-11-2001, Annexure P-4, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, the respondent No. 2 herein, in Revision Case No. 106-A-89/2001-2002 whereby he has stayed the order passed by the Additional Collector, Sagar in Case No. 2-A/89/2001-2002.

(2.) THE facts as have been uncurtained are that the petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bansiya Bardo, District Sagar. A 'motion of No Confidence' was initiated against the petitioner by some of the members of the said Gram Panchayat and the Naib Tehsildar, Circle Surkhi, District Sagar, the respondent No. 6 herein, was appointed as the Presiding Officer of the meeting which was scheduled to be held on 8-10-2001. The 'motion of No Confidence' was passed against the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 9-10-2001 contained in Annexure P-1 held that the 'motion of No Confidence' had been properly passed. The said order was assailed by the petitioner by raising a dispute under Section 21 (4) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Collector, Sagar and the said authority vide Annexure P-2 dated 12-11-2001 came to hold that the 'motion of No Confidence' was not properly passed against the petitioner, and accordingly, he set aside the 'motion of No Confidence' dated 8-10-2001. After the said order was passed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sagar, the respondent No. 5 herein, passed an order dated 21-11-2001 for giving of charge of Sarpanch to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No. 7 who was functioning as incharge Sarpanch preferred a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Sagar forming the subject matter of Revision Case No. 106-A-89/2001-2002. The said authority admitted the revision and directed stay of order passed by the Additional Collector, Sagar. It is urged in the petition that no revision lies against the order of the Collector passed under Section 21 (4) of the Act and, therefore, the order passed vide Annexure P-4 is not maintainable.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondent No. 7 contending inter alia, that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sagar, the Prescribed Authority, appointed the Naib Tehsildar, Circle Surkhi as Presiding Officer to preside over the meeting relating to 'no Confidence Motion' which was held on 8-10-2001 and due notices were issued for holding of such meeting. It is further putforth that meeting was held on the date fixed and out of total 17 members, 12 members voted in favour of the 'no Confidence Motion' and 3 members voted against the 'motion of No Confidence'. A copy of the proceeding has been brought on record as Annexure R-7/3. It is urged that the meeting was held as per the rules and there was no illegality in the same. It is further putforth that the Additional Collector interfered and set aside the resolution without hearing the members of the Gram Panchayat who were the necessary parties, as a result of which the respondent No. 7 has to prefer a revision. It is putforth that the Gram Panchayat was not made a party before the Collector and, therefore, the order passed by him is void ab initio.