Mahesh Prasad Chaudhari vs State of M.P. and Others

D.P.S. Chouhan, J.—The Petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Amkhere. Against him, a motion of no confidence was brought. The total number of the strength of the Gram Panchayat was 14 out of which, one person voted against the motion and 12 voted in support of the motion and one vote was declared invalid, as a result of which, the motion was declared to have been passed.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Shri Satish Shrivastava. He made three fold submissions:

(I) That the procedure as prescribed under Rule 5(4) of the Madhya Pradesh 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 Rules), was not complied with as the Petitioner was not allowed to speak on the motion.

(2) That no compliance of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules was done as no 7 clear days'' notice for meeting of motion of no confidence specifying the time and place was given to the Petitioner, i.e. 7 days before the day of the meeting was not given to the Petitioner.

(3) That Section 40 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides for the removal of the office-bearers and as such, there was no necessity of bringing motion of no confidence against the Petitioner u/s 21 of the Act.

It is a fact that the Petitioner, out of 14 members of Gram Panchayat, received one vote and against him, there were 12 votes. Out of the total strength of the 14. So far as the strength of the membership against the Petitioner is concerned, it is not necessary to investigate into the matter as to whether the Petitioner was allowed to speak or not on the motion of no confidence, as provided in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules. The allegation is that the Presiding Officer without giving any opportunity to debate and discuss the no confidence motion under Rule 5 of the Rules, allowed the members to cast their votes. No confidence motion is passed against the Petitioner wherein the Petitioner was present, even such a non-compliance of the procedural law would not vitiate the result of the no confidence motion.

However, the learned State Counsel states that the proceedings as recorded in regard to the motion of no confidence shows that the opportunity of discussion on the motion of no confidence was provided. This point has no substance. Accordingly it is rejected.

Second submission as advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that no notice as required under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules was given to the Petitioner. The Petitioner participated in the meeting of no confidence motion. After passing of the no confidence motion against the Petitioner, the Petitioner is not entitled to raise such an objection.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the notice was delivered on 1.11.95 and the meeting was held on 3.11.95.

The requirement of law is not for delivery of the notice of the meeting but is for causing the notice despatched. It is not the allegation that the notice was not despatched within the time required by law. Thus, this point has also no substance and is accordingly rejected.

The third point was that Section 40 of the Act provides for removal of the office-bearers and as such, there was no question of bringing no confidence motion u/s 21 of the Act.

Section 40 provides for removal of the office-bearers on specified charges whereas no confidence motions is not on any specified charges. On removal u/s 40 of the Act, a person is disqualified for a period of six months for being re-elected but in the case of motion of no confidence, a person does not incur any disqualification. He can contest the election. Thus, this submission has also no substance and is accordingly rejected.

The petition, in view of the above, has no substance and is rejected.