BHARATLAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 8-6-1995 for certain lapses on his part, viz. (1) that the Sarpanch did not call meetings every month, in August, 1994, January 1995, and March, 1995, meetings were not held but certain resolutions were shown to be passed in the proceedings register; (2) a meeting was required to be held every three months, which was not held and the budget was not got certified in the meetings; and (3) the irrigation tank, area 8. 50 hectares was given for fishing lease for a period of ten years without there being a proper resolution or without there being any resolution by the Panchayat. In the enquiry, the petitioner clearly admitted that he did not convene meetings but, however, submitted that it was the responsibility of the Secretary, he also contended that quarterly meeting was also required to be convened by the Secretary, therefore, these were the lapses on the part of the Secretary. Regarding the third charge, it was submitted that on 2-12-1994, because of paucity of time, he could not hold the meeting of the Panchayat, but, however, took the opinion of some Panchas, which in fact constituted majority. After finding that they were agreeable to grant lease in favour of one Narottam, he referred the matter for guidance and thereafter executed the lease deed on 3-1-1995. After hearing the parties, the Sub-Divisional Officer in the enquiry and the Additional Collector in the revision, found the charges proved and, therefore directed an order under Section 40 to remove the petitioner from the office. Being dissatisfied by the said orders, the petitioner has filed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) SHRI Deoras learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State in fact was relying upon the amendment incorporated in Section 6 (3) in the year 1995, after the charge sheet was issued and was not justified in fixing the liability on the petitioner's head. He also submits that if the petitioner Sarpanch does not direct convening of the meeting, then it was the duty/responsibility of the Secretary and if he failed in discharging his duties in accordance with law, the petitioner cannot be held liable. Regarding the third charge, it was contended that because of paucity of time, he only took the opinion of ten panchas and as the ten panchas constituted majority, he was justified in granting the lease in favour of Narottam. He also submitted that the S. D. O. and the Additional Collector misdirected themselves by holding that the subsequent resolution dated 10-6-1995 was also illegal, while in fact there was no charge. On the other hand, Shri Nagu for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 submits that under the M. P. Gram Sabha (Procedure of Meeting) Rules 1994, the date, time and place for the meetings of the Gram Sabha shall be fixed by the Sarpanch, in his absence by the Upsarpanch and in the absence of both, the Secretary has to do this work. According to him, unless the Sarpanch fixes the date, time and place, a meeting cannot be convened under Section 6 (3 ). He also submits that Section 44 (7) clearly provides that if the Sarpanch fails on at least three occasions to act in accordance with sub- section (4) or sub-section (6), he shall be liable to be removed from the office. He submits that the conduct of the petitioner regarding non-passing of the resolution and the grant of lease in favour of Narottam, clearly makes out a case under Section 40 (1 ) (a) of the Act and the petitioner was rightly removed.

(3.) M. P. Gram Sabha (Procedure of Meeting) Rules, 1994, have been made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 95 (1) and sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. Rule 3 clearly provides that the date, time and place of the meeting of a Gram Sabha shall be fixed by the Sarpanch or in his absence by the Up-Sarpanch and in the absence of both, by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. It cannot be held that if the Sarpanch does not fix the date, time and place, then too a meeting under Section 6 (3) can be convened by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. Shri Deoras submits that the respondents are placing reliance on the amended sub- section (3) which has become operative from 15-12-1995, therefore, the order is bad. In the opinion of this Court, the unamended sub-section (3) of Section 6, does not help and assist the petitioner. It is clear that the petitioner did not fix the date, time and place for the meetings. Undisputedly, on three occasions, he did not call the meetings. Section 44 (7) provides that if the Sarpanch fails on at least three occasions to act in accordance with sub- section (4) or sub-section (6), he shall be liable to be removed from his office under Section 40. In the instant case, the provisions of Section 44 (7) would apply with full force. The authorities were not unjustified in finding against the petitioner. 3a. Undisputedly, no meeting was convened, no resolution was passed and no vote was taken from all the members constituting the Panchayat. From the documents filed by the petitioner, it appears that on 2-12-1994 he had taken opinion of ten persons who constituted the majority, without even informing the other five who were opposed to him and on the basis of that opinion sent a letter to the officer for further directions. On 3-1-1995, a lease deed was executed in favour of Narottam and others. This Act of the petitioner was in gross violation of the provisions of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the majority had already opined in favour of Narottam, therefore, even without resolution of the Panchayat, such lease could be granted in favour of the said Narottam would be misconceived. When the law provides that a resolution is to be passed in the house, then such resolution is to be passed in accordance with law, otherwise, the majority would become dictator and without convening a meeting would pass a resolution even without informing the persons in minority. It would virtually be contrary to the principles of democracy and the principles for which the Panchayat Raj was established.