RAJA RAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Collector's order under Section 35 of the M. P. Panchayats Act, 1981, (for short, the "act") removing the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of Gram panchayat at Pachera, Tehsil Mehgaon, District Bhind, (for short, the "panchayat"), as also the order of dissolution of the Panchayat passed by the State. Government in exercise of its powers under Section 81 of the Act

(2.) THE petitioner was a duly elected Sarpanch of the Panchayat which consisted of 17 Panchas. Ten out of 17 Panchas claimed to have tendered their resignations to the sarpanch, who refused to accept the same. The said Panchas, therefore, reported the matter to the Collector, who after notice to the petitioner passed his impugned order dated 23-9-1985, (Annexure P/1) and also recommended to the Government for dissolution of the Panchayat The State Government thereupon, passed its impugned order of dissolution dated 4-11-1985, during the pendency of this petition. The order of removal (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector was initially challenged by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner by filing a revision under section 85 of the Act. As stay sought for was refused by the Additional Commissioner, the petitioner filed this petition on 25-10-1985, and after obtaining an ex-parte order of stay from this court on 30-10-1985, got the revision filed before the Additional Commissioner dismissed on 15-1-1986,as evidenced by Anttexure R/3. After the return was filed along with the order (Annexure R/1) of the State Government the petitioner amended his petition and added a prayer for quashing the order of dissolution passed by State govern ment as well.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner specifically denied before the Collector that any Panch tendered any resignation to him and consequently it was incumbent on the Collector to afford him an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his contention. This opportunity, according to him, was denied to him in spite of a prayer being made in that regard on 12-9-1985.