SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by action of SDO in not initiating the proceedings for recall of Sarpanch under section 21-A of M. P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam, 1993) and dismissal of appeal by the collector.

(2.) PETITIONER is a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nayagaon District Panna. A motion for recall of Sarpanch was moved on 10. 9. 2007 which was signed by 987 members of Gram Sabha. Collector authorized respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 appointed committee consisting of 3 members to submit report. Report was submitted by the Committee -that Secretary was not available as such allegation made could not be verified. It was not possible to verify the signatures of 981 persons on the spot, there was possibility of dispute in the village, hence report was submitted by the Committee. The SDO for the purpose of verification directed that the persons who have signed the requisition for recall should keep themselves present in the office of SDO and file their affidavits in support thereof. Order was issued on 4. 10. 2007. It appears that 217 persons' signatures were obtained on the register by the SDO in support of motion for recall. The SDO opined that as one third persons did not turn up, hence proposal to initiate the proceedings for recall was rejected. Against the order, an appeal was preferred before the Collector, same has been dismissed vide order (P-7) dated 11. 3. 2008. Petitioner has submitted that the action is illegal and arbitrary. Earlier also motion for recall was moved which was not put for consideration. The procedure followed for the purpose of verification of the signatures was not proper. It was not proper for the SDO to call 980 persons to his office and ask them to file the affidavits. Consequently miscarriage of justice has taken place.

(3.) THE stand of the respondents No. 1 to 3 in their return is that verification of one third members could not be made consequently the satisfaction reached by the SDO is proper. The officer on probation could also act as SDO. The signatures of the villagers could not be verified in the village as there was unrest in the village as such one third members of the village were advised to come to the office of the SDO for the purpose of verification vide notice (R-2) dated 4. 10. 2007.