AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17-9-2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No. 2 in Revenue Case (Appeal) No. 33-A/89 (6) 2007-08, whereby stay has been granted in favour of respondent No. 4 against the order removing respondent No. 4 from the post of Sarpanch as a consequence of no-confidence motion passed by the Gram Panchayat against her.
The facts, briefly stated, are as under:
The petitioner is an elected Panch of Gram Panchayat Goriya, Janpad Panchayat Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.). Gram Panchayat consists of 21 Panchas. Respondent No. 4 was the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. The elected members of Gram Panchayat gave a notice to move a motion of no-confidence against respondent No. 4 to the Prescribed Authority in accordance with Rules. On receiving the notice, the Prescribed Authority, after being satisfied, fixed the date, time and place for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat to consider the motion of no confidence. Tehsildar Kunkuri was nominated as the Authority to preside over the meeting. The meeting was convened on 8-9-2008 and the motion of no confidence was passed against respondent No. 4 with a majority of 17:2 votes.
Consequently, an order of removal was served upon respondent No. 4 by the concerned Authority. Against the said motion and the order, respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Jashpur (respondent No. 2) under Rule 3 of the C.G. Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. Respondent No. 2 entertained the appeal and passed the impugned order dated 17-9-2008 and stayed the execution of the order dated 11-9-2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority in consequence of the motion of no confidence being passed by the Gram Panchayat in the said meeting. The aforesaid order has been challenged in this petition.
The singular contention raised is that in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 1993''), a reference only, under Sub-section (4) was maintainable, therefore, the order passed by the Additional Collector was without jurisdiction.
Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, reads as under:
No-confidence motion against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch.-
(1) *** *** *** (2) *** *** *** (3) *** *** *** (4) *** *** *** (i) *** *** *** (ii) *** *** *** (iii) *** *** ***
(4) If the Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, desires to challenge the validity of the motion carried out under Sub-section (1), he shall, within seven days from the date on which such motion was carried, refer the dispute to the Collector who shall decide it, as far as possible, within thirty days from the date on which it was received by him, and his decision shall be final.
A bare perusal of Sub-section (4) makes it clear that within 7 days from the date on which motion was carried a dispute has to be referred to the Collector who shall decide it within the stipulated period and his such decision shall be final. The provisions of the reference as also the finality of the decision taken by the Collector in the reference under Sub-section (4) of Section 21, if read in context of the provisions of the appeal with further provisions of Appellate Authority and the limitation etc., it would be clear that the two provisions operate in different fields and in view of the provisions of Section 21(4) of the Act, 1993, the Additional Collector would not be having jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed by an aggrieved party against whom a motion of no confidence was passed. His remedy lies in filing a reference to the Collector under Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, 1993.
Its a settled principle of law that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and a nullity remains nullity and can be so declared at any stage. In case on hand, the Additional Collector was having no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal either against passing of a no-confidence motion or an order issued in consequence thereof, which only communicates the said motion passed. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector is a nullity.
In the result, the petition is allowed and impugned order passed by the Additional Collector is quashed.
No costs.