SHANKARLAL PATIDAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Shankarlal has been removed from the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kua, Tehsil Rajpur, District West-Nimar, by a motion of No-confidence' passed against htm in a meeting held on 4-6-1973 for that purpose in accordance with section 24 of the Madhya pradesh Panchayat Act, 1962. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges his removal and consequently prays for quashing the resolution dated 4-6-1973 to this effect (Annexture 'd' to the petition ).

(2.) THE strength of Panehas of the Gram Panchayat, Kua, was sixteen. However, prior to the notice of motion being moved and passed against the petitioner, one of the Panehas died so that the total number of Panehas constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being was reduced to fifteen only when the resolution was passed on 4-6-1973. It is also not in dispute that the notice of motion was given in the prescribed form in accordance with Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayats (No-confidence Motion Against sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Rules, 1964, to the Secretary which was received by the Secretary on 27-4-1973. The content of this notice of motion is also not in dispute so that the genuineness of this notice of motion, on the basis of which the meeting was called and held on 4-6-1973, is also not in question. It is, however, a common ground before us, being alleged in the petition and admitted in the return filed by respondents Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, respondent no. 2 having chosen not to file any return, that the Secretary, on receiving the notice of motion under sub rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh gram Panchayats (No-confidence Motion Against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch)Rules, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), did not sign thereon a certificate stating the date on which and the hour at which the notice had been given to him. Thus non-compliance to this extent of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the rules is not in dispute. The effect of such non-compliance is the main controversy before us.

(3.) SHRI S. L. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the resolution passed against the petitioner is invalid for the following reasons:-