RAJENDRA SINGH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties are on loggerheads on the question relating to validity of No-Confidence Motion proceedings. In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the proceedings of the meeting dated 7.11.2012, whereby a No- Confidence Motion was passed against him. The order dated 30.1.2014, Annexure P-1, is also called in question, whereby the validity of the proceedings dated 7.11.2012 is upheld by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena.

(2.) The necessary facts giving rise to this matter are that the petitioner was President of Janpad Panchayat Gohad, district Bhind. A notice was submitted by 21 members of Janpad Panchayat before the Collector on 17.10.2012 asking to convene the meeting for considering No-Confidence Motion. The Collector, in turn, on 30.10.2012 directed to convene a meeting on 7.11.2012 to decide the question of No- Confidence Motion. The meeting was convened on 7.11.2012 and No- Confidence Motion was passed. Thereafter, parties have fought a long drawn battle in the corridors of the Court. However, ultimately in WP No. 8532/2012, this Court on 16.11.2013 directed the petitioner to avail the remedy under section 28(4) of Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter called as 'Adhiniyam') before the Commissioner. In turn, the dispute was filed before the Commissioner on 28.1.2013, which is decided by the impugned order dated 30.1.2014.

(3.) Shri H.D.Gupta, learned senior counsel assailed the proceedings of No-Confidence Motion by contending that on 17.10.2012 a notice of No-Confidence Motion was submitted, which was not in prescribed form. It was filed under the signature of Shri Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate. The Collector has not followed rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh 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 called as '1994 Rules'). The Collector has not mentioned the date, time and place, as required to be mentioned under rule 3. He has not recorded his satisfaction as required in rule 3 read with section 28 of the Adhiniyam. Since main notice dated 17.10.2012 does not contain the signatures of elected members, said notice by no stretch of imagination can be treated as a valid notice of No-Confidence Motion. It is strenuously contended that as per rule 3 aforesaid, the Collector was required to convene the meeting of Janpad Panchayat within fifteen days from the date of receipt of said notice. In the present matter, it is contended that Collector has fixed the meeting beyond fifteen days from the date of presentation of notice. Thus, the said meeting and the resolution passed on the said date is null and void. It is further submitted that the notice of meeting for the purpose of no confidence needs to be issued by Chief Executive Officer whereas in the present case the Collector entrusted this job to Sub-Divisional Officer, which is bad in law. In the debate on 7.11.2012, the petitioner was not permitted to speak. There was no effective discussion/debate and, therefore, proceedings on 7.11.2012 were vitiated. It is further contended that in the manner meeting was conducted, rule 5 of 1994 Rules was grossly violated. It is submitted that during the proceedings before the Commissioner, members, namely, Sunil Kaurav, Smt. Nirmala Devi and Guddi submitted affidavits and stated in favour of the petitioner. No cross- examination was conducted on the said affidavits by the other side. Hence, their statement should have been treated as correct and learned Commissioner has erred in disbelieving the same. In support of the aforesaid arguments, learned senior counsel relied on following judgments:-