KAMLESH PATEL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed. He is also heard on interim relief.

(2.) Shri Rahul Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a 'No Confidence Motion' was initiated against the petitioner, an elected Sarpanch of Village Kalapani. In the meeting held on 9.1.2018, the 'No Confidence Motion' could not be passed and a finding in this regard was given by Tehsildar in his order dated 9.1.2018 Annexure P/3. The learned Sub Divisional Officer(Revenue) in his order dated 15.1.2018 reiterated the aforesaid factual position namely; 'No Confidence Motion' could not be passed. The learned Collector by impugned order dated 5.2.2018, in purported exercise of power under sub-section (4) of Section 21 of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'Adhiniyam'), entertained the appeal preferred by respondent No.3 and set aside the orders of Tehsildar and SDO aforesaid with further direction to convene a fresh meeting for considering the 'No Confidence Motion'.

(3.) Shri Diwakar by placing reliance on the language employed in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Adhiniyam contended that this provision can be invoked by Collector only when a 'No Confidence Motion' is carried out/passed under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Adhiniyam. For this reason, the right to assail the validity of such motion was given/confined to Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch only. In case, 'No Confidence Motion' failed, sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Adhiniyam cannot be pressed into service. The Collector's order is without jurisdiction. Shri Diwakar placed reliance on 1999 (2) MPLJ 67 (Ramnath Kaushik vs. State of MP and others) and 2008 (1) MPHT 302 (Smt. Sunita Patel vs. The Collector and others).