MUKU BAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the aforesaid appeals arise out of the orders of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 16-10-1996 and 24-1-1997 passed in W. P. No. 2473/96 and W. P. No. 3890/96 respectively; therefore, they are disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) L. PA. No. 225/96 is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16-10-1996 passed in W. P. No. 2473/96 and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition relying on his earlier decision given in the case of Dhumadandhin v. State of M. P. , 1997 (2) MPLJ 175.

(3.) THE brief facts giving in LPA No. 225/96 are taken into consideration. A notice to convene the meeting of the Gram Panchayat to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner was given on 16-5-1996. It is averred that on the basis of the aforesaid notice the prescribed authority fixed the date of meeting for 17-6-1996 and on the said date, no confidence motion was carried out by the required majority. Therefore, a petition (W. P. No. 2473/96) was filed challenging the passing of no confidence motion on the ground that the meeting was convened after expiry of 15 days under Rule 3 (3) of the M. P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994, (hereinafter referred to as the "niyam of 1994" in brevity ). Therefore, the question for consideration was whether Rule 3 (3) is a mandatory or a directory. There is difference of opinion on this issue. Prasad, J. , in the case of Dhumadandhin (supra), took a view that Rule 3 (3) is directory. The same view has been followed by Dharmadhikari, J. , in subsequent decision given in the case of Ramlal Dayal v. State of M. P. decided on 11-3-1997 and in Anr. decision given in the case of Smt. Baby Raja v. State of M. P. and Ors. , decided on 2-4-1997.