SUNITA PATEL Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order disposes of Writ Petition No. 19078/2006 and Writ petition No. 18174/2006. Reference has been taken from W. P. No. 18174/2006.

(2.) PETITIONER was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pondi Khurd, district Katni. The said Gram Panchayat was constituted by 15 Panchas. A no confidence motion was submitted against the petitioner which came up for voting on 15-9-2006. 11 Panchas voted in favour of. no confidence motion whereas 3 Panchas voted against it. One vote was declared invalid. Since, the no confidence motion was not passed by 3/4th of the Panchas present in voting, the same was rejected vide Annexure P-1 ,. dated 15-9-2006. An appeal was preferred against it by respondent No. 3 who was merely a Panch. It has been allowed vide the impugned order Annexure P-3, dated 24-11-2006. The learned Collector, katni observed that the intention of the voter ought to have been ascertained and the same being ascertainable, the vote held to be invalid by the Presiding officer could not have been rejected on technicality. The said vote was treated as valid in favour of no confidence motion and accordingly, it was held that the no confidence motion was passed by 12 votes.

(3.) AFORESAID order marked as Annexure P-3 is under challenge in the writ petition on the ground that the appeal before the Collector, Katni on behalf of one of the Panchas was not maintainable. It is contended that sub-section (4)of Section 21 of M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 enables merely a Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch to challenge the validity of the no confidence motion by filing a dispute before the Collector. Respondent No. 3 was not Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch and had no locus standi to prefer a dispute envisaged under sub-section (4 ). Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order contained in Annexure P-3 having been passed in an untenable appeal, is not sustainable in law.