SOMVATI SONI v. GRAM PANCHAYAT, PADWAR — 1999 DIGILAW 693 (MP)

ORDER A.K. Mathur, C.J. This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against order dated 12-3-1998 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4027 of 1995. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the petitioner/appellant Smt. Somvati Soni who was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Padwar, District Jabalpur filed the present writ petition challenging the resolution passed against her to remove her from the office of Sarpanch on account of passing of No Confidence Motion. The said No Confidence Motion was moved by the Up-Sarpanch against the petitioner/appellant which was received by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Prescribed Authority on 30th October 1995. On receipt of the No Confidence Motion, the Prescribed Authority directed to issue notice thereof and accordingly, a notice was issued in respect of convening of a meeting dated 13th November 1995, specifying therein the time at 12 noon and the place i.e. Primary School Building, Padwar. It was directed that the meeting shall be presided over by the Naib Tahsildar Shri Y. K. Kulhada, Tahsil Office, Jabalpur. In this meeting, the motion of no confidence was passed against the petitioner/appellant; therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition challenging the resolution on the ground that notice of the meeting was not issued by the Prescribed Authority as required under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janapad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam 1994 (for short 'Avishwas Prastav Niyam'). Learned Single Judge has interpreted the words 'Prescribed Authority' as defined in clause (XXI) of section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993 (for short the 'Act') and observed that the Prescribed Authority is the Sub Divisional Officer. Learned Single Judge also interpreted the expression 'caused to be despatched by him' appearing in sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Avishwas Prastav Niyam to mean that the notice has to be issued under his authority and it can be served through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat concerned. The learned Single Judge observed that it does not mean that the notice should be signed by the Prescribed Authority. It was held that the expression 'caused to be despatched by him' meant that the Prescribed Authority has to only remain vigilant that the things are done properly and carefully. The learned Single Judge observed that it does not mean that the notice should be signed by the Prescribed Authority. It was held that the expression 'caused to be despatched by him' meant that the Prescribed Authority has to only remain vigilant that the things are done properly and carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge to the expression 'caused to be despatched by him' should mean that the notice should be issued by the Prescribed Authority. Before we proceed to give our opinion, it would be relevant to reproduce Rule 3(3) of the Avishwas Prastav Niyam which reads as under: "Notice: (1) ........... (2) ........... (3) On receiving the notice under sub-rule (1) the Prescribed Authority shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to sections 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, Janapad 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 despatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting." The requirement of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Avishwas Prastav Niyam is that whenever a notice is received by the Prescribed Authority desiring to move a motion of no confidence against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat or President or Vice President of Janpad or Zila Panchayat as the case may be, he shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to section 21(3) of the Act in case of Gram Panchayat, section 28(3) of the Act in case of Janapad Panchayat and u/s 35(3) of the Act in case of Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, that the notice is in consonance with the aforesaid provision or not. After having been satisfied that the notice is in consonance with the aforesaid provision, he shall fix the date, time and place of the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Janpad 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 shall specify the date, time and place of the meeting and the same shall be caused to be despatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or through the Chief Executive Officer of the Janapad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting. Thus, what is required of the Prescribed Authority is that whenever notice of no confidence is received by him, he shall satisfy himself that it is in consonance with law and then after fix the date, time and place of the meeting and the notice shall be caused to be despatched by him which means that he passes the order that notice shall be issued fixing date, time and place of the meeting. The expression 'caused to be despatched by him' should not necessarily mean that the notice should be signed by him. If the Prescribed Authority passes the order on being satisfied that the notice is in order, then he shall fix the date, time and place for convening the meeting. Compliance of the foresaid order is nothing but a clerical job. Once the order has been passed by the Prescribed Authority, then the issue of notice is a clerical step and that has to be served through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat concerned or the Chief Executive Officer of the Janapad Panchayat/Zila Panchayat concerned, as the case may be. What is relevant is that an order has to be passed by the Prescribed Authority for issue of notice. Issue of notice is a clerical job and the notice has to be served through the Secretary of Gram Panchayat or the C.E.O. of Janapad Panchayat/Zila Panchayat. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge appears to be correct. What is relevant is that an order has to be passed by the Prescribed Authority for issue of notice. Issue of notice is a clerical job and the notice has to be served through the Secretary of Gram Panchayat or the C.E.O. of Janapad Panchayat/Zila Panchayat. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge appears to be correct. In the present case, learned Single Judge called the record and found that it has been recorded by the Prescribed Authority on the note-sheet that notice be issued and that notice had been issued and the same was got served through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. Consequently, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant is not correct and therefore the same is turned down. As regards the Prescribed Authority, it is not disputed by the petitioner/appellant that the S.D.O. is the Prescribed Authority. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner next submitted that the notice which was issued does not disclose as to for what purpose the meeting was called. Though this argument has not been advanced by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, however, the learned counsel submitted that it is a legal question which may be interpreted by this Court for future guidance of the authorities. We have bestowed our best of consideration to sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Avishwas Prastav Niyam. The expression the notice of such meeting appearing in sub-rule (3) signifies that apart from fixing date, time and place of the meeting, the authority should also specify the purpose of the meeting. In absence of specifying the purpose the notice is vague. Learned counsel submitted that giving a blank notice specifying date, time and place of the meeting does not convey the purpose for which the said meeting is called. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Procedure of Meeting and Conduct of Business) Rules 1994 (for short the Conduct of Business Rules) and submitted that Rule 3 deals with convening of the meeting. It contemplates that for convening meeting, apart from fixing date, time and place, business which is going to be transacted should also be mentioned in the notice. Rule 3 of the Conduct of Business Rules reads as under: "3. Convening of the meeting. It contemplates that for convening meeting, apart from fixing date, time and place, business which is going to be transacted should also be mentioned in the notice. Rule 3 of the Conduct of Business Rules reads as under: "3. Convening of the meeting. -- (1) Subject to the provisions of section 44 of the Act the date, time and place of the meeting shall be fixed by the Sarpanch or President, as the case may be. (2) Notice of every meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof and the business to be transacted thereat shall be sent by the Secretary or the Chief Executive Officer, as the case may be, to every office bearer and exhibited at the office of the Panchayat seven clear days before an ordinary meeting and three clear days before special meeting. (3) Every meeting shall be presided over by the Sarpanch or President, as the case may be, or in his absence the Up-Sarpanch or Vice-President, as the case may be, or in the absence of both, by a member chosen by the members present at the meeting to preside over the occasion. (4) All questions before a meeting shall be decided by a majority of voters of the members present and, unless otherwise provided, the person presiding the meeting shall have a second or casting vote in all cases of equality of votes." Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 quoted above says that notice of every meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof and the business to be transacted thereat shall be sent through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the expression 'such meeting' appearing in sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Avishwas Prastav Niyam should mean that the purpose of the meeting should be disclosed so that the party may know about the business to be transacted thereat. Learned counsel for the State submitted that in fact the Conduct of Business Rules are not applicable to the Avishwas Prastav Niyam. True, it may be that when specific rules have been framed, those rules should normally govern the conduct of business. But the general rules have been laid down for conduct of business and therein it has been made clear that apart from fixing date, time and place of the meeting, notice should specify the purpose for which meeting is being convened. But the general rules have been laid down for conduct of business and therein it has been made clear that apart from fixing date, time and place of the meeting, notice should specify the purpose for which meeting is being convened. In fact, if the purpose is not mentioned in the notice issued under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Avishwas Prastav Niyam, then it will be a vague notice because the Panchas would not be knowing that for what purpose the meeting is being convened. Bare fixing the date, time and place of the meeting will be a vague notice as the Panchayat or the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat may not be conscious of the purpose of the convening of the meeting. Therefore, the expression 'such' appearing in Rule 3(3) of the Avishwas Prastav Niyam has to be assigned some meaning in the context of a notice of fixing date, time and place and it would mean that purpose for which meeting is convened should be specified. Therefore, we interpret the word 'such' appearing in Rule 3(3) of the Avishwas Prastav Niyam that apart from specifying the date, time and place of the meeting, the notice should also specify that the meeting is convened for a particular purpose of motion of no confidence. It may be desirable if copy of that motion of no-confidence is enclosed with the notice. We are of the opinion that whenever such meeting of no confidence is called specifying date, time and place, the purpose should also be mentioned therein. So far as the present case is concerned, no such argument was raised before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we cannot permit the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner to raise this question of fact in this appeal. However, for future guidance, we have interpreted Rule 3(3) of the Avishwas Prastav Niyam so that the authorities may be vigilant while issuing such notice. In the present case, we are satisfied that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.