SURESH KUMAR DOGRA Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following interesting question of law arises for decision in the present case ;- Whether an authority presiding over a meeting convened to consider a no-confidence motion under Section 129 of the H. P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 has the right to cast a casting vote in case equal votes are cast in favour and against the no-confidence motion?

(2.) The brief facts necessary for decision of the case are that the petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Hamirpur in the elections held on 14-1- 2006. On 30-1-2008, a notice of no-confidence motion was moved against the petitioner by the Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. The said notice was signed by 9 out of the total 15 members comprising the Panchayat Samiti . On the said notice being issued, a meeting was convened by the Vice-Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti to discuss the no-confidence motion against the Chairman. The meeting was fixed for 7th February, 2008 in the office of the Block Development Officer, Hamirpur. In terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the Chairman could not preside over the meeting which was to consider the no confidence motion against him.

(3.) The Vice-Chairman presided over the meeting. The Vice-Chairman being the Presiding Officer did not have a right to vote under Rule 134(2} of the H. P. Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997. Out of 15 members who were present, 14 voted. Seven votes were cast for the motion and seven against. Thereafter, the Vice-Chairman who had not taken part in the proceedings till that stage and had not exercised his vote cast a casting vote in favour of the motion and the motion was stated to have been carried by 8 votes to 7.