BHAIYALAL Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT NAURJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this petition under article 226 has prayed for quashing of the no -confidence motion passed against him as Sarpanch and for appropriate writs and directions.

(2.) The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Naurja under the provisions of the M. P. Panchayats Act, 1962. Respondent No. 1 is the Gram Panchayat, Naurja, respondents 2 and 3 are the Collector and the State of Madhya Pradesh and the remaining respondents are the Panchas of the Gram Panchayat, there are in all 17 Panchas including the petitioner. Ramswaroop Dubey, acting as the secretary of the Gram Panchayat issued notices for a meeting to be held on 24 -9 -1981 to consider the no -confidence motion moved against the petitioner by the respondent No. 13 to 11 other Panchas. It appears that the meeting did not take place on that day and the aforesaid secretary re -issued notices on 30 -9 -1981 to consider the no -confidence motion on 10 -10 -1981 at 12 o'clock in the noon in the school building.

(3.) The meeting was held at the appointed time and place, the motion was carried, 9 Panchas in favour, 2 against with 6 abstentions. It may be mentioned here that the M. P. Panchayats Act, 1962 was repealed by the M. P. Panchayats Ordinance, 1981, on 24 -4 -1981, and the Ordinance was replaced by the M. P. Panchayats Adhiniyam, which came into force on 7 -10 -1981. The petitioner has challenged the no confidence motion on the following grounds. Firstly, it is non -est as not being ratified by the Gram Sabha as required under section 24 of the old Act, this vested right not being taken away under the new enactments in spite of repeal. Secondly, the notices served failed to give 7 days clear notice of the meeting as is mandatory under the rule and as such meeting was illegal and thirdly, the notices failed to mention the names of Panchas moving the resolution and the grounds thereof and the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to meet the same.