PRABHULAL Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT GURADIYA DEDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was elected to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Guradiya Deda, District Mandsaur. In a meeting of the Panchayat held on 29-8-1983 a no-confidence resolution was passed against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he preferred an appeal challenging the said resolution before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The appeal was dismissed on 28-11-1983 vide Annexure-B. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, for quashing the resolution Annexure-A.

(2.) The case was heard by a Division Bench which by separate orders expressed that the matter be referred to a larger Bench as it involves a re-consideration of an earlier order of Division Bench of this Court in Sojharmal Sawandas v. Municipal Council, Kharsia, 1964 MPLJ 293. Accordingly this Full Bench was constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. In the petition the impugned resolution dt 29-81983 was challenged on different grounds, but at the time of hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his challenge to the no confidence resolution on the ground that it was passed by voting by secret ballot.

(3.) Annexure-A is the copy of the minutes of the meeting dt. 29-8-1983 of the said Gram Panchayat in which no confidence resolution was passed against the petitioner. In this document it is specifically mentioned as follows : However, in the return filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4, it has been mentioned "that the vote of no confidence was passed unanimously by all the nine present panchas attending the meeting who voted in favour and support of the no confidence motion initially by show of hands. This initial voting by show of hands was however subsequently confirmed by secret balloting. This factual-position that the voting was in point of fact initially by show of hands and then by balloting is confirmed by the panchas including the Secretary of the Panchayat (respondent 2) in their solemn affirmation made on oath in the affidavits sworn by them. The respondents have also filed affidavits in support of that plea. The omission in the minutes of the meeting (Annexure-A) with regard.to the initial voting being by show of hands has been explained by saying that it was possibly a bona fide inadvertence on the part of the Presiding Officer.