KAMLA DURGA SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment of the Single Bench holding therein that the motion of no-confidence passed against respondent No. 4 is invalid. It is contended that after passing of the no-confidence motion, appellant was elected subsequently as the President of Zila Panchayat, Morena under Section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent No. 4 Shrimati Guddi Bai was elected as Member of Zila Panchayat, Morena and thereafter she was elected as President of the Zila Panchayat under Section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter, referred as the "act" ). After her election, an application was submitted to the Commissioner, Chambal Division by some of the members of the Panchayat proposing to move motion of co-confidence against the elected President. On receiving the letter of the members, Commissioner issued notice (Annexure P-3), dated 12-8-2002 (annexed with the writ petition), fixing a date to consider the motion of no-confidence and appointed Collector, District Morena as Presiding Officer to conduct the motion. Meeting was convened on 20-8-2002 and in the meeting, motion of no-confidence against the President was carried out and she was removed from the post of the President. Dispute has been raised under the provisions of Section 35 (4) of the Adhiniyam to the State Government and the representation has been rejected vide Annexure P-4, annexed with the writ petition. Respondent No. 4 then filed a writ petition before this Court. Argument was that no-confidence motion was required to be passed under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Pras-tav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter, referred to as the "rules of 1994" ). It was argued that the meeting was not held in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules of 1994 and therefore, entire proceedings of the meeting are vitiated on this ground alone. It is further contended that when the dispute was referred to the State Government, it could not have been decided by the Minister concerned as the Minister has no authority to hear and decide the dispute. It was further contended that the Minister without considering the statutory provisions of the Rules and without application of mind has held that motion of no-confidence was carried out. Prayer was opposed and it was contended that the motion of no-confidence has been carried out and more than 3/4th of the members have voted in favour of motion of no-confidence, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. Since fresh elections have been held, therefore, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of election petition. Petition as filed is not maintainable. It was also contended by the Counsel for the State that vide Notification (Annexure R-2) annexed with the writ petition powers to hear dispute have been delegated to the Minister by the State Government, therefore, Minister has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Learned Single Judge has allowed the petition on the ground that rules have not been followed and all the elected women members of the Panchayat were permitted to take the assistance of male members being their husband, brother, or friend above the age of 18 years and in view of the aforesaid matter, such permission was contrary to the law and provisions of Section 35 of the Adhiniyam and Rule 5 (5) of the Rules of 1994. It is held by the learned Single Bench that when the procedure is prescribed for doing a particular thing, it should be done accordingly and if the procedure has not been followed, then entire proceedings are vitiated. Single Bench held that secrecy of the ballot was not maintained as illiterate women members have taken assistance of male members, therefore, the elections have been set aside.

(3.) ONLY question involved in the appeal is whether there was any breach of rules while considering the motion of no-confidence.