LAWS(MPH)-2007-5-11

RAVINDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On May 01, 2007
RAVINDRA SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are elected Panchas of Gram Panchayat Ishanagar Tehsil and District Chhatarpur (for short 'gram Panchayat' ). Out of total 20 Panchas, 15 Panchas of the Gram Panchayat desiring to move a motion of no-confidence against the fourth respondent Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat gave a notice on 25-1-2007 under Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke president Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (for short 'avishwas Prastav Niyam, 1994') to the third respondent/prescribed authority.

(2.) ON receipt of the aforesaid notice dated 25-1-2007 (Annexure P-2)the Prescribed Authority called upon the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad panchayat, Chhatarpur to produce list of elected Panchas of Gram Panchayat. On 27-1-2007 the fourth respondent along with 6 Panchas who were amongst the signatories of the notice (Annexure P-2) voluntarily appeared before the prescribed Authority. The said 6 Panchas made a statement before the prescribed Authority that they are not interested to move no-confidence motion against the fourth respondent Sarpanch. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties rejected the notice to move the motion of no-confidence vide order dated 31-1-2007 (Annexure P-4) on the ground that as Panchas out of the 15 Panchas who had earlier signed the notice to move no-confidence motion are not in favour of the notice of no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch, no useful purpose will be served in fixing the date for consideration of the no-confidence motion. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 31-1-2007 (Annexure P-3) the petitioners had filed an appeal before the Collector but the same was dismissed vide order dated 24-2-2007 (Annexure P-4 ). Hence, this petition.

(3.) THE petitioners contend that under the provisions of M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'adhiniyam of 1993') and Avishwas Prastav Niyam, 1994 the Prescribed Authority is not empowered to enquire into the correctness of the notice received by him under rule 3 of Avishwas Prastav Niyam, 1994. The Prescribed Authority is required to satisfy only about the admissibility of the notice with reference to Section 21 (3) of the Adhiniyam of 1993. However, instead of it the Prescribed Authority allowed the Panchas to appear before him and submit affidavits stating therein that they are not interested to move the motion of no-confidence against the sarpanch thereby acted in excess of his jurisdiction.