Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1977 DIGILAW 337 (MP)

RAMESHWAR DAYAL MAHARAMAN v. B N TRIPATHI

1977-09-08

C.M.LODHA, R.L.MURAB

body1977
JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a petition by Rameshwar Dayal, one of the panchas of Gram Panchayat, Jawasa, (district Bhind) for declaring that the no-confidence motion against Sarpanch Baburam, non-petitioner 4, has duly been passed by the Gram Panchayat, Jawasa, in its meeting held on 16-8-1971 and that the Presiding Officer B. N. Tripathi, non-petitioner 1, has wrongly held that the motion had not been passed. A copy of the minutes of the meeting has been placed on record and marked annexure-1. ( 2. ) THE total strength of the Panchas prescribed for the Gram Panchayat is 21. The petitioners case is that out of these 21 Panchas, seats of 5 Panchas had fallen vacant on account of their having tendered resignation and, thus, the total number of Panchas at the time of holding the meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion was only 16. It is not in dispute that ten members had voted for the motion and six against it. The presiding officer was of the view that the total number of Panchas should be taken to be 21 for considering the question of passing of the no-confidence motion and, since only ten had voted for the motion, the motion had failed. The contention of the petitioner is that the view taken by the presiding officer is erroneous in law. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Skankarlal v. State of M. P. and others, 1975 M PL J 116. ( 3. ) THE petition has been opposed by the non-petitioner 4 Baburam as well as the presiding officer B. N. Tripathi, who are represented by Shri a. K. Shrivastava and Shri H. G. Mishra, respectively. Written replies have also been filed on their behalf. ( 4. ) THE main objection taken by the non-petitioners is that four panchas, viz. , Shriram, Thakuri, Mahila Somota and Pansingh, have filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge, Class II, Bhind, for declaration that their resignations were forged and, consequently, the no-confidence motion was rightly held not to have been passed against non-petitioner 4 Baburam in the meeting of the gram Panchayat held on 16-8-1971. It is submitted that that suit is pending and, therefore, this petition cannot be decided in view of the aforesaid suit. Mr. It is submitted that that suit is pending and, therefore, this petition cannot be decided in view of the aforesaid suit. Mr. Mishra has also raised another preliminary objection that the petitioner should have approached the Collector under section 299 of the M. P. Panchayats act (7 of 1962) (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act) for getting the view of the presiding officer quashed. ( 5. ) AT this stage, we may observe that the correctness of the view taken by this Court in Shankarlals case (supra) has not been called into question and, in our opinion, rightly also. It must, therefore, be held that for the purpose of counting the total number of Panchas at the time of consideration of the no confidence motion, the actual number of Panchas constituting the Gram panchayat for the time being will alone be taken into consideration. The only question, therefore, for decision is what was the total number of Panchas at the time of consideration of the no-confidence motion. But, before we proceed to decide this point, we may depose of the two preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners. ( 6. ) AS to the pendency of the suit filed by the four Panchas, it is pertinent to point out that the petitioner has not been impleaded a party to it, though he was very much concerned with it. As a matter of fact, it appears to us that that suit has been filed primarily for the benefit of non-petitioner No. 5 it is also significant that the other Panchas who had voted in favour of the no confidence motion have also not been impleaded parties to the suit. Consequently, it is open to the petitioner to argue that he is not bound by whatever decision that may be given in the suit. We are, therefore, of opinion that pendency of that suit cannot operate as a bar to the decision of this writ petition on merits. ( 7. ) AS regards the other preliminary objection raised by Mr. Mishra, section 299 of the Act, undoubtedly, gives power to the Collector to suspend execution of any order, resolution, licence, etc. , passed or issued by the Gram panchayat. Now, in the present case, there is no question of suspending any resolution because the motion of no-confidence was held to have fallen. Mishra, section 299 of the Act, undoubtedly, gives power to the Collector to suspend execution of any order, resolution, licence, etc. , passed or issued by the Gram panchayat. Now, in the present case, there is no question of suspending any resolution because the motion of no-confidence was held to have fallen. No authority has been cited before us in which it may have been held that even when a no-confidence motion has fallen, the Collector has authority under section 299 of the Act to come to the conclusion that the no-confidence motion has been passed. No other provision has also been brought to our notice and, as at present advised, we are not prepared to hold that section 299 of the act provides an alternative remedy to the petitioner for redress of his grievance made in the petition. We are, therefore, of opinion that the petition is not liable to be thrown out on any of the preliminary grounds. ( 8. ) THIS bring us to the main question as to what was the total number of Panchas at the relevant time. A reference to the proceedings of the meeting held on 16-8-1971 (annexure-1) would show that the presiding officer himself while dealing with the question of no-confidence motion against the Up-Sarpanch, came to the conclusion that seats of five Panchas had fallen vacant, but while dealing with the no-confidence motion against non-petitioner 4, baburam, Sarpanch, he had held that for that purpose, the total number of panchas would be deemed to be 21. It is significant to note that even though the non-petitioner No. 4 was present in the meeting, he did not raise any objection that seats of five Panchas had fallen vacant as their resignations were forged. It is also suggestive that even here non-petitioner No. 4 Baburam has not filed any counter-affidavit to show that the resignations of the four panchas were forged to his knowledge. All that he has stated in reply to the petition is that a suit has been filed by the four Panchas with a prayer for declaration that the resignation were forged, fraudulent and ineffective. This is neither here nor there. All that he has stated in reply to the petition is that a suit has been filed by the four Panchas with a prayer for declaration that the resignation were forged, fraudulent and ineffective. This is neither here nor there. None of the five Panchas, whose seats are said to have fallen vacant, have filed their affidavits in this Court to the effect that their resignations were forged If the non-petitioner No 4 wanted to rely on this fact, this was the least which he should have done. We have therefore, no alternative but to hold that the total number of Panchas at the relevant time was only 16 and not 21 and, consequently, the no-confidence motion was wrongly held to have fallen. ( 9. ) IN the result, we allow the petition and hereby declare that the no-confidence motion was validly passed against the non-petitioner No. 4 Baburam in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat held on 16-8-1971. A further direction is issued that he will hand-over the charge forthwith. There will be no order as to costs. The security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.