PRABHU DAYAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14-5-2002 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1916/2002, the appellant, respondent in the writ petition, has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent.

(2.) FACTS, in brief, necessary for disposal of this appeal are stated thus:-The appellant Prabhudayal Patel was the Sarpanch of gram-Panchayat, Khejra Lakhrouni, against whom resolution of 'no confidence motion' was passed on 5-12-2001. 12 out of 16 persons voted in favour of 'no confidence motion' and four persons voted against it. The Presiding Officer held that no confidence motion was duly carried out resulting in removal of the appellant from the post of Sarpanch.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the resolution of 'no confidence motion' the appellant preferred a revision petition under Section 91 of Madhya Pradesh panchayatraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). In the revision it was alleged that no confidence motion was carried in violation of rule 4 of the Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up- Sarpanch, janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules of 1994' ). The Additional Collector dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 21 (4) of the act. The validity of this order of Additional Collector was challenged in Writ petition No. 500/2002. This Court remanded the matter with a direction to treat the revision petition to be a dispute under Section 21 (4) of the Act. In compliance of these directions, the Collector decided the matter and set aside the resolution of 'no confidence motion' on the grounds that-