CHANNULAL Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is assailing the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner setting aside the resolution of no confidence motion passed against the respondent No. 5 as contained in Annexure P-4. In all 17 Panchas were present. Meeting was held instead of Gram Panchayat building in Higher Secondary School, Guna. Three of the Panchas and Sarpanch did not participate in the meeting. In all 17 Panchas cast the votes, 15 in favour of no-confidence motion, two votes were cancelled. It was held that no-confidence motion has been passed by requisite majority. It is also mentioned in the resolution P-4 that the Sarpanch was not allowed to come in the meeting by the opposite faction. Sarpanch preferred dispute before the Collector u/s 21(4) of the M.P. Panchayat and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam. Same was allowed as per order dated 11.3.2002 and the Collector held that the Sarpanch Munni Bai was not informed of the place where the meeting took place on the day when the meeting was held. She was also not informed of the date of meeting when it was earlier adjourned. In addition, the Collector found that the petitioner was, thus, deprived of opportunity of participating and explaining the charges against her in the meeting. This order P-7 has been approved by the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar as per order P-9 dated 22.11.2002. Orders P-7 and P-9 are assailed in the present writ petition.

(2.) SHRI R.K. Samaiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no prejudice to the respondent No. 5 as she filed an application P-6 on 4.10.2002 before the Tehsildar. Panchas had assembled initially in the Gram Panchayat building, as same was not in good condition decision was taken to shift the venue of the meeting to adjoining building of the School. Thus, there was no prejudice when 17 Panchas have participated, no-confidence motion was carried out by requisite majority, it is incorrect recording made in resolution that ¦ Sarpanch was not allowed to participate in the meeting by the opposite party. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, has supported the orders passed by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner.

(3.) AS the meeting held was invalid motion for no-confidence has to be considered afresh in a meeting to be duly convened by the prescribed authority fixing the time, place and the date for such a meeting Let the meeting be held within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the prescribed authority.