BHIKAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, filed by one Bhikam Singh who was elected as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Meghpura, District Bhind, for quashing the resolution (Annexure R/10), dated the 12th May, 1984, resolving a vote of no confidence against him.

(2.) The short facts leading to the present petition and essential for its decision, are these : On an earlier occasion, that is, on the 3rd Dec., 1983, a resolution for vote of no confidence against the petitioner was moved in the manner prescribed under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Act, 1981 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act), and that it failed. A resolution on the subject was again moved within a period of six months and has been passed by 12 members from amongst the 16 present out of the total strength of 19 members, voting in favour of the resolution (Annexure R/10). Though the petition is verbose inasmuch as various contentions have been raised, challenging the validity of the resolution (Annexure R/10), the learned Counsel for the petitioner has confined and planned his argument only to one contention that a fresh resolution on the subject of no confidence against the petitioner could not be moved within six months from 3rd of Dec., 1983 inasmuch as neither three-fourths of the members of the said Panchayat had recorded their consent for the reconsideration of the resolution for vote of no confidence against the petitioner, nor there was any direction of the prescribed authority for its reconsideration. The order (Annexure R/3) dated 30th April, 1984 of the prescribed authority, on the strength of which, it is claimed by the respondents that reconsideration of the resolution, in question, was justified is not a direction, falling within the scope of S.38 of the Act.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents have, in their argument, with the difference of eloquence, made a submission to counter the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the totality of consideration of the documents. Annexures R/1, and R/2, R/3 and the language employed in Annexure R/3, particularly with its rubric, in substance, is a direction for reconsideration of the resolution on the subject of vote of no confidence against the petitioner, warranted under S.38 of the Act.