KANDHILAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of the Order dated 28-10-98 passed in revision Case No. 460/A-89/97-98 by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Jabalpur, reversing the Order dated 29-6-98 passed in Case No. 8B-121-97-98 by the learned Addl. Collector, Jabalpur.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the respondent No. 4, elected Sarpanch had faced a no-confidence motion; a meeting for consideration of said no-confidence motion was convened on 13-2-98. Proper notices were issued to all the 12 Panchas, including Sarpanch constituting the Panchayat. On 13-2-98, in presence of all the members constituting the Panchayat, the motion was considered. 9 Panchas voted in favour of the motion, while the respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 voted against the motion. It is noteworthy that instead of going for the secret ballot, the Panchas were asked to show their opinion by raising hands. As 9 Panchas favoured the motion by raising their hands in favour of the motion, the authority declared the motion to be carried. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No. 4 moved a petition under Section 21(4) of M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Collector. The Collector finding that the procedure adopted by the Presiding Officer was illegal quashed the proceedings, remitted the matter back to the Panchayat with a further direction that within a period of fifteen days from the date of the order, the meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion be convened. It was also directed that notices afresh be issued to all the Panchas/Sarpanch constituting the Panchayat. In compliance of the order passed by the Addl. Collector, the Naib Tahsildar was made the Presiding Officer, who in his turn issued fresh notices to all the Panchas/Sarpanch directing that the meeting would be held on 25-5-98. The respondent No. 4 (Sarpanch), respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6 did not attend the meeting. This time the secret ballot procedure was adopted and as all the 9 Panchas present in the meeting supported the motion, it was declared carried. Being aggrieved by the said resolution, the respondent No. 4 filed a petition under Section 21(4) of the Act and raised various points. The Addl. Collector instead of deciding the matter as a dispute treated the same as an appeal, without recording any evidence only after hearing the arguments of the parties, dismissed the said petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No. 4 took up the matter before the Addl. Commissioner, Jabalpur under Section 91 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Appeal and Revision Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

(3.) The learned Addl. Commissioner allowed the said revision petition holding that as the first resolution was set aside by the Addl. Collector, a meeting within one year of the first rejection was not competent under Section 21(3) of the Act. He also observed that as notices were not properly offered for service or were not served on the respondent No. 4 to 6, the meeting held was bad an no resolution could be carried in the said meeting. It is noteworthy that the present petitioners raised an objection before the learned Addl. Commissioner that the revision under Section 91 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules was not competent. The said objection was overruled. Being dissatisfied by the order passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, the petitioners have filed this petition.