MAHESH KUMAR KANNUJE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the proceedings dated 10.12.96 (Annexure P -5) recording that the no -confidence motion was passed against the petitioner. The said proceedings have been challenged mainly on the ground that as the meeting was not held within 15 days from the date of receipt of the motion of no -confidence, therefore, the meeting was illegal; as no motion was moved in the meeting convened for the specific purpose the meeting was invalid and as the meeting was not held at Gram Panchayat Bhawan but was held at Dondi -lohra the same was illegal. Placing reliance upon rule 3, it was submitted that a meeting for considering the motion has to be convened within 15 days from the date of receipt of said notice and as the meeting was not convened within 15 days, a meeting beyond 15 days neither could be convened and if it was so convened, it was contrary to law. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the provisions of sub - rule (3) of rule 3 of the M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up -Sarpanch, Janapad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice -President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994, are mandatory and as the meeting was not held within 15 days, no subsequent meeting could be held.

(2.) TRUE it is that a Full Bench of this Court has held that provisions as contained in sub -rule (3) of Rule 3 are mandatory, but the said observations are to be read in their true perspective. The mandate is issued against the Sub -Divisional Officer/Prescribed Authority who has to direct convening of the meeting. A notice of no -confidence or motion of no -confidence cannot be defeated because of the non -action on part of the prescribed authority. When the law says that the prescribed authority has to hold a meeting within 15 days, then it is to remind that authority that he has to do the things within the period fixed by the rules, but non -action on his part cannot defeat the motion or notice because otherwise a Sub -Divisional Officer/Prescribed Authority after joining hands with the Sarpanch, etc., can always defeat the motion by not convening the meeting within 15 days.

(3.) SO far as holding of the meeting at a place different than the Panchayat office, is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, would not make much of the difference because the petitioner has failed to show that he has suffered any prejudice. It is to be seen that Panchayat is constituted of 11 Panchas and 1 Sarpanch, that is, in all total of 12 office bearers. The record shows that at the time of consideration of the no -confidence motion and voting, all the 12 were present. If that was so, simple change of the place of meeting would not occasion any prejudice to the petitioner. I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter or set aside the resolution carrying the no -confidence motion against the petitioner. The petition deserves to and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.