RAMESH CHANDRA VANSHKAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is before this Court is aggrieved by an order dated 19-9-06 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Revision no. 361/2005-06 whereby the revision has been allowed and the order of the collector dated 31-7-06 wherein no confidence motion conducted against the petitioner which was held illegal has been set aside.

(2.) IT has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was declared as elected Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Jigna, Tehsil and District Datia on 16-1 -05. A notice was given for calling a meeting of no confidence against the petitioner under the provisions of M. P. panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 read with Rule 3 of the M. P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke Adhyaksha Tatha upadhyaksha Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994. It has been further stated that the mandatory notice period of 7 days was not granted while calling the meeting of no confidence motion which was scheduled to be on 10-4-06.

(3.) ON 10-4-06 the proceedings took place and the motion was passed by 17 members out of total 21 members. It has been further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner did not receive any notice with other three persons namely Indresh Raja, Smt. Ramkali Kushwah and Smt. Bitti Bai. As they did not receive any notice to attend meeting on 10-4-06, they have not able to attend the meeting. A final order was passed by the Sub Division Officer on 10-4-06 based upon no confidence motion and the petitioner was ousted from the Office of sarpanch. It has been further stated in the writ petition that an appeal was preferred under Section 21 (4) of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj adhiniyam, 1993 and the same has been allowed by the Collector, Datia who is the Appellate Authority, on the ground that provisions of Rules, 1994 were not followed. Against the order of the Collector a revision was preferred before the commissioner and the contention of the petitioner is that the learned commissioner has erroneously set aside the order passed by the Collector merely on the ground that majority of the panchas have voted against the petitioner.