JUGRAJ SINGH MARKAM Vs. DHANNULAL MARAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition assails the order P -2 passed by the Collector, Balaghat, holding the no confidence resolution to be illegal and also holding the order dated 26.7.2002 with respect to the appointment of the Presiding Officer as illegal.

(2.) 1998(1) JLJ 124], to submit that when a person has participated in the meeting, is not entitled to raise the objection after the resolution of no -confidence has been passed. No objection was raised before the meeting by the Sarpanch, hence, the order of the Collector is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.

(3.) SHRI Pradeep Naveriya, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the order passed by the Collector is illegal. He has submitted that as respondent No.1 had participated in the meeting as such cannot raise the grievance of non -despatch of the notice, even if despatch of notice was not seven clear days before the date of the meeting. No prejudice has been caused. He has further submitted that by making amendment in the appointment of the Presiding Officer on 26.7.2002 no prejudice has been caused by not sending the intimation prior to 3 days as required. He further submitted that since all the Panchas were given opportunity to speak the finding recorded by the Collector that Sarpanch was not given 0pp0l1unity of explaining the charges and who actually moved the motion is of not much importance as the resolution has been carried out with due majority.