Smt. Kiran Devi vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition filed u/s 226 of the Constitution challenges the No-confidence motion, initiated by the private respondents herein and the order, Annexure P-1, whereby the Sub-Divisional Officer/Prescribed Authority has issued notice and fixed the meeting for the purpose of No-Confidence Motion on 13.8.2013.

Assailing this order/notice, Shri H.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised following points:-

(i) As per rule 3 of 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 called as "Rules"), the Prescribed Authority is obliged to satisfy itself about the admissibility of the notice. The Prescribed Authority has not recorded any satisfaction and in absence of undertaking said exercise, committed an error of law in issuing notices for the purpose of No-confidence motion.

(ii) No-confidence motion was submitted before the Collector and in turn those documents were sent by the Collector to the Prescribed Authority/SDO. In absence of submitting the requisite application/motion before the Prescribed Authority, the entire action is bad in law.

To elaborate, Shri H.K. Shukla has drawn the attention of this Court on certain documents, which are filed with the list of documents.

Pausing here for a moment, I deem it proper to deprecate this practice of filing documents along with list of documents. This exercise is not permissible as per High Court Rules. If the documents are filed in this manner, the other party may be taken by surprise. The documents are filed without there being any factual foundation in the pleadings. The documents filed with the list of documents are not even supported by any affidavit. However, in the interest of justice, in this matter the documents are considered with clear understanding that henceforth documents filed with the list of documents in absence of pleadings and affidavit will not be entertained.

By drawing attention of this Court to the order sheet dated 2.8.2013 (Annexure P/1A), it is contended that it is the Prescribed Authority, who has to satisfy itself. The motion has to be moved before the Prescribed Authority. Since it was moved before the Collector and, in due course, sent to the SDO, by no stretch of imagination, it fulfills the requirement of rule 3 of the Rules. It is further submitted that the document dated 25.7.2013 shows that the said representation/no-confidence was in fact submitted before the Collector. The attention is drawn on the application dated 23.7.2013 preferred before the Collector by the Panchas. On the strength of these documents, it is urged that the No-confidence motion is, in fact, preferred before the Collector, which was sent by the said authority before the SDO. Thus, on the strength of these documents, the impugned notice is incorrectly issued. There is a serious procedural flaw in the order and, therefore, the order is liable to be interfered with.

Smt. Nidhi Patankar and Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the same and submitted that the impugned order is in consonance with the said Rules. Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that a careful reading of the order sheet dated 2.8.2013 makes it clear that the requirement of Section 21 of the Adhiniyam read with rule 3 of the Rules is satisfied. He submits that the applications in prescribed form and in original were actually submitted by the Panchas on 1.8.2013. If any document/s is filed before the Collector prior to it and in turn the Collector had sent the document/s to the SDO, it will have no adverse impact on the impugned order.

No other point is pressed by the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Before dealing with rival contentions of the parties, it is apt to quote Section 21(3) of the Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and rule 3(3) of the Rules, which read as under:-

Sec. 21(3)-No-confidence motion shall not lie against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of--

(i) one year from the date on which the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch enter their respective office;

(ii) six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, expires;

(iii) one year from the date on which previous motion of no-confidence was rejected.

Rule 3(3)-On receiving the notice under sub-rule (1) the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to Section 21(3), 28(3) and 35(3), as the case may be. On being thus satisfied, he shall fix the date, time and place for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, which shall not be more than fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The notice of such meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof shall be caused to be dispatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting.

The Legislature has chosen to employ the words "shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to Section 21(3)........ " [rule 3(3)]. A bare perusal of this provision makes it clear that for the purpose of satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority, the relevant ingredients are mentioned in Section 21(3) of the Act. If on the basis of aforesaid, order sheet dated 2.8.2013 is examined, it will be clear that the Prescribed Authority has taken into account the relevant ingredients in his order. The requirement of Section 21(3) was satisfied on receiving the said information by the Prescribed Authority. Thus, the limited satisfaction which is required as per rule 3(3), is taken care of and recorded. In other words, the Prescribed Authority has taken into account the relevant factors which were required to be considered for the purpose of arriving to a ''satisfaction''. Thus, I am unable to hold that the requirement of "satisfaction" is not fulfilled by the competent authority.

I find force in the argument of Shri Jain that a careful reading of order sheet dated 2.8.2013 shows that Panchas submitted some application of No-confidence motion before the Collector. This was in due course forwarded to the office of SDO by the Collector. A plain reading of first paragraph of this order sheet shows that the said documents were received but the documents are photocopies. Later on, notice of no-confidence was received on 1.8.2013 in original with affidavits. The action is taken pursuant to this application/motion dated 1.8.2013. On the contrary, the document dated 23.7.2013 filed by Panchas before the Collector shows that they made repeated efforts but the SDO did not entertain their application. In view of this prayer, the Collector merely sent the application before the SDO for the purpose of taking action in accordance with law. In turn, the Panchas submitted their application of no-confidence in prescribed form on 1.8.2013. It was pregnant with the relevant affidavits of Panchas. After having satisfied with the necessary ingredients, the meeting was directed to be held as per the impugned notice dated 2.8.2013. I find no procedural flaw in the same. The petitioner is not able to show any prejudice caused to him because of alleged procedural flaw. Considering the aforesaid, I am unable to hold that the impugned notice suffers from any procedural or jurisdictional error.

At the end of hearing, learned counsel for the parties submitted that the meeting which was scheduled by Annexure P-1 could not take place. I am not inclined to enter into the aspect about the effect of the same. If law permits, it will be open for the authorities to proceed further as per notice, Annexure P/1.

In absence of any legal error in Annexure P-1, the same is upheld. Petition is dismissed. No cost.