NAGSAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who is a elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of Siri Khurd, under Vikas Khand, Jhingerwar of District Raipur has challenged the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dt. 14-11-1995, whereby the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner was carried out.

(2.) Brief facts for the decision of this petition are that a notice 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 'Rules') was given to the prescribed authority in the form prescribed to move motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. On that notice of convening a meeting was despatched to every member of Panchayat. On 14-11-95 the meeting was conducted by the Presiding Officer in the manner prescribed as laid down in Rule 5, wherein 14 Panchas including the petitioner were present. After the conclusion of debate on the motion, ten members casted their votes in favour of the motion and two voted against the motion. One vote was rejected. Thus, the motion was passed by majority as required by S. 21(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'Adhiniyam'). In the meeting so held the petitioner though was present was not allowed to speak and to participate in the proceedings of the meeting nor was allowed to cast his vote.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the validity of resolution of no-confidence on various grounds, but, it is not necessary to deal with all the grounds and contentions raised, as in the opinion of this Court, the motion of no-confidence so passed is in violation of Sec. 21(2) of the Adhiniyam inasmuch as in the meeting so held the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the meeting. He was neither allowed to speak nor was allowed to vote which is evident from the minutes of the meeting and is not denied in the return.