SHANKARLAL DHLAJI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MANDSAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner challenges the validity of the resolution passed by the gram Panchayat, Alori, on 8-5-1971 by which a motion of no-confidence was passed against him resulting in his removal from the office of Sarpanch.

(2.) THE notice, dated 30-4-1971 (Annexure A to the petition) was issued by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Alori under rule 4 of the M. P. Gram panchayats (No confidence Motion against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Rules, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the rules) convening the meeting for the purpose of section 24 of the M. P. Panchayats Act to consider the motion of no-confidence moved against the Sarpanch petitioner, Shankarlal. The time of the meeting required to be specified therein by virtue of rule 4 of the Rules was stated as 8-5-1971 at 11a. M. However, at 11 A. M. on 8-5-1971, no panch was present at the specified place of the meeting on account of which the Presiding Officer, respondent No. 2, adjourned the meeting and fixed the same to be held after one hour at 12 noon, the same day. A notice to this effect adjourning the meeting by one hour was also affixed on the notice board. Such action, being taken by respondent No. 2 resulting in adjournment of the meeting to a time one hour later the same day, cannot be disputed in view of annexure E dated 8-5-1971, which contains the record of the entire proceedings of 8-5-1971 in the hand of respondent No. 2 himself. Annexure E to the petition, being recorded by respondent No. 2, is expressly admitted in the return filed on behalf of respondents 16 to 23 and there is no denial of the same by the other respondents including respondent No. 2 on whose behalf no return has been filed. The fact of such an adjournment of the scheduled meeting is, therefore, undisputed. In the adjourned meeting held later, the same day, a resolution was passed accepting the motion of no-confidence by the requisite majority. It is for this reason that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) SHRI S. L. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged only one ground in support of the petition. He argues primarily that there was no power at all to adjourn such a meeting, there being no provision to that effect in that Rules which prescribe the entire procedure for such a meeting held under section 24 of the Act. Alternatively he argues that no Panch having been present at 11 a. m. on 8-5-1971, which was the time specified for the meeting under rule 4, there was no power available to respondent No. 2 to adjourn the meeting to any time later the same day and the adjourned meeting could have been held only on the following day or some future date which may have been fixed for this purpose as provided in sub-section (4) of section 30 of the Act which applies to such a situation. Shri Garg, argues that there being no provision in the M. P. Gratn Panchayats (No-confidence motion against sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Rules 1964 for adjournment of such a meeting or the manner in which it could be adjourned, for this purpose sub-section (4) of section 30 applies which is the general provisions relating to meetings of the gram Panchayat. In reply, Shri P. L. Mehta, Additional Government Advocate, at first, argued that there was no adjournment of the meeting and it was held at the time specified in the notice (Annexure A ). However, being faced with the contents of Annexure E written in the hand of respondent No. 2 himself, which clearly records the fact of such adjournment and express admission to this effect by respondents Nos. 15 to 23, there being no denial by any one else, Shri Mehta ultimately abandoned that stand. Finally, the only argument advanced by Shri Mehta is that sub-section (4) of section 30 of the act it not attracted to such a meeting and there being no provision to the contrary in section 24 of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, the power of the presiding officer was unfettered in this respect.