MAHAVEER SAKET Vs. COLLECTOR REWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the resolution dated 12.8.1996 passed against the petitioner removing him from the office of Sarpanch on carrying of no -confidence motion.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that some no -confidence motion application for taking no -confidence motion was submitted against the petitioner of which cognizance was taken by the competent authority and a meeting was directed to be held on 26.7.96. On 26.7.96, the meeting could not be held, therefore, according to the petitioner, the motion stood rejected and no meeting could be held for considering the said motion on 12.8.1996. According to the petitioner, the Presiding Officer had no power to adjourn the meeting, therefore, it must be held that adjournment of the meeting dated 26.7.96 would mean that the motion of no -confidence failed.

(3.) PLACING reliance upon rule 3 of the Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up -sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice -President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994, it was contended that the meeting cannot be convened beyond the period of more than 15 days from the date of receipt of notice of no -confidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the meeting held on 12.8.96 was beyond the period of 15 days it was contrary to rule 3. Rule 3 considered in its true spirit would only mean that if no -confidence motion is moved, it would ordinarily be decided, after vote, within a period of 15 days so that no scope for horse trading is left. If the meeting is held beyond 15 days, it would not affect its validity. This Court in the matter of Smt. Dhumadandhin v. State of M.P. [1997 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 49] has already held that if the meeting is held beyond 15 days from the date of receipt of the motion of no -confidence notice, it would not be void. Following the observations made by this Court in the matter of Dhumadandhin (supra), I am also of the opinion that conduction of the meeting beyond 15 days would not make the meeting void.