BANSILAL MOTILAL Vs. O.V. NAGAR, COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the resolution of no -confidence passed against him as the President of the Janapada Panchayat on 10 -9 -1971.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of decision of this petition are that the petitioner was the resident of village Ojhar, Tehsil Rajpur District West Nimar and that he was elected as a member of the Gram Panchayat in the elections held in April 1970 for the Gram Panchayat Ojhar. He is also unanimously elected to represent the Ojhar Gram Panchayat in the Janapada Panchayat Rajpur and thereby he was elected as a member of the Janapada Panchayat Rajpur. On 29 -5 -1971 the petitioner was elected as the president of the Janapada Panchayat Rajpur and his election was notified by respondent No. 1 on 10 -6 -1971. It is alleged that respondent No. 18, who was also a candidate at the election of the President of the Janapada Panchayat, filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner as President. It is also alleged that thereafter on an application by respondent No. 18 in the election petition, the election of various sub -committees of the Janapada Panchayat was stayed but later, on cause being shown by the petitioner before respondent No. 1, the stay order was vacated. It is alleged that even thereafter the petitioner was not permitted to function as the President of the Janapada Panchayat by respondent No. 1 by various methods, but all that was alleged was only to show that respondent No. 1 was acting prejudicially against the petitioner. It is further alleged that on 17 -8 -1971 respondent No. 18 gave a notice of a motion of no -confidence and a copy of this notice was sent by respondent No. 18 to respondent No. 1 with a request to appoint an officer to preside over the meeting under section 117 (2) sub -clauses (ii) and (iii) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act. This notice was signed by respondent No. 18 alone according to the petitioner. On this notice, it is alleged that respondent No. 1 passed an order appointing respondent No. 2 to preside over the meeting as the prescribed authority to consider the motion of no -confidence against the petitioner; and in accordance with this order respondent No. 3 issued a notice on 1 -9 -1971 to the President, Vice -President and other members of the Janapada Panchayat Rajpur informing them that a meeting of the Panchayat was called on 10 -9 -1971 at 12.00 Noon to consider a no -confidence motion, notice of which was given by Shri Ummedsingh, against the petitioner. In accordance with this notice, it is alleged that the meeting was held on 10 -9 -1971 and it was presided over by respondent No, 2 and the resolution was passed by 16 votes to 8 and therefore it was declared to be passed. The contention raised in this petition is that this meeting was illegal and therefore the resolution of no -confidence could not be said to have been passed by a valid meeting of the Janapada Panchayat.

(3.) SECTION 120 of the Act runs: - -