SHIVAJI RAO PATIL Vs. COLLECTOR BALAGHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated March 13, 2002, passed in Writ Petition No. 850/2002.

(2.) THE petitioner was Vice-President, Janpad Panchayat, Baihar (Balaghat ). No-confidence motion was passed against him on 12-11-2001. He appealed against this decision before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, however, without success. On the date when no-confidence motion was passed, 16 members were present out of which 13 voted in favour of no-confidence motion and three against it.

(3.) THE ground of challenge is that the petitioner was not allowed to speak for or against the no-confidence motion in terms of Section 28 (2) of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, and one the members Smt. Urmila Bharadwaj was served with notice only on 8-11-2001, four days before the meeting instead of 7 days. These questions have been examined by the learned Single Judge. It is found that the petitioner may have right to speak or otherwise take part in the proceedings, but he did not request the Presiding Officer for allowing him to speak in his defence, though he was present in the meeting. Therefore, the contention that he was not allowed to speak in the meeting, has not been accepted. The provision does not require the Presiding Officer to ask the petitioner to speak, when he has not put up such a request. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is similar to Mahesh Prasad Choudhary v. State of M. P. [1997 (2) JLJ 397] and Smt. Bhulin Dewangan v. State of M. P. [2000 (4) M. P. H. T. 69 (FB)], holding that such non-compliance would not vitiate result of no-confidence motion/meeting and that the petitioner has to prove serious prejudice caused to him or failure of justice.