Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1055 (MP)

Mohan Singh v. Ratan Singh Kushwah

2002-11-29

RAJENDRA MENON

body2002
ORDER Menon, J. -- 1. Petitioner has filed the aforesaid petition challenging the validity of the order Annexure P-1 dated 24.9.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena in exercise of powers conferred on him under section 28 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 was Vice-President of the Janpad Panchayat and a motion of no-confidence was moved against the respondent No.1 vide Annexure P-2 signed by 18 persons. The motion was moved under the provisions of section 28 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and after the aforesaid motion was moved, SDO Shri H.B. Singh was appointed as Presiding Officer to preside over the meeting to be held for consideration of no-confidence motion on 24.9.2002. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 8.10.2001, the petitioner was elected as Vice-President of the Janpad Panchayat. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1, being aggrieved by the issuance of no-confidence motion against him, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner under the provisions of section 28(4) of the Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Amongst others, various grounds were raised by the respondent No.1 before the Commissioner, in fact from the averments made on record, it is seen that four grounds were raised by respondent No.1 before the Commissioner which are Grounds No.1 to 4 in para 3 of the impugned order. According to the petitioner, as far as ground No.1, 3 and 4 are concerned, the aforesaid grounds were rejected and the Commissioner refused to interfere in the matter on the aforesaid grounds. However, ground No. 2 was upheld and the motion of no-confidence has been set aside on the aforesaid ground and the matter has been remitted back to the Collector for taking fresh action for convening the meeting and deciding the motion of no-confidence afresh. It is submitted by Shri Jain, learned Sr. counsel that the ground on which the motion of no-confidence has been set aside is that the Presiding Officer, namely, SDO Shri H.B. Singh was biased against respondent No. 1 and because of bias no-confidence motion was not properly passed. The Presiding Officer has not conducted the meeting properly according to law. Referring to order impugned and by taking me through various documents available on records it is submitted by learned Sr. The Presiding Officer has not conducted the meeting properly according to law. Referring to order impugned and by taking me through various documents available on records it is submitted by learned Sr. counsel that the finding of bias recorded is not supported by cogent reasons and material. That apart, it is argued by him that even if the pleadings and averments of bias are accepted, until and unless it is established from the proceedings of the no-confidence motion that the said bias was converted into action which untimately resulted in some irregularity or illegality in conduct of the meeting held for consideration of no-confidence motion, no interference could be made. Placing reliance on the judgments referred to herein under, it is argued by Shri Jain that in the facts and circumstances of the case as the proceedings of the no-confidence motion meeting are not vitiated in any manner whatsoever no interference could be made by the Commissioner. In this regard reliance is placed on Meena Bai Prem Lai Chaudhary v. State bf M.P. and others 1998(11) MPWN 130 = 1999(2) MPLJ 97 , Bhulin Dewangan v. State of M.P. and others 2000(2) JLJ 253 = 2001(2) MPLJ 372 . In that view of the matter it is submitted by Shri Jain, learned Sr. Counsel that the order impugned cannot be sustained. 4. Refuting the aforesaid Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contends that the petitioner as Vice. President and Member of the Selection Committee who was required to conduct selection procedure for the purpose of appointment of Samvida Shala Shikshak by the Panchayat had made serious complaints against the SDO Shri H.B. Singh. It is the case of the said respondent that for the purpose of getting his son and daughter appointed as teachers in the Panchayat, Shri Singh had misused his power and because of that the petitioner had made complaint against Shri Singh. Not only was a complaint filed against Shri Singh for the aforesaid, the petitioner had filed a public interest litigation bearing W.P. No. 1405/01 before this Court which was disposed of on 31.8.2001. Thereafter when Shri Singh was appointed as Presiding Officer for conducting the meeting vide Annexure P-3 the petitioner had made a complaint to the Collector on 21.9.2001 and raised objection against the appointment of. Shri Singh as Presiding Officer. Thereafter when Shri Singh was appointed as Presiding Officer for conducting the meeting vide Annexure P-3 the petitioner had made a complaint to the Collector on 21.9.2001 and raised objection against the appointment of. Shri Singh as Presiding Officer. It is the case of the said respondent that the entire meeting in which the motion of no-confidence was considered was vitiated because the said meeting was interfered by the Presiding Officer Shri Singh and he misused his office to see that the no-confidence motion is passed and respondent No.1 is removed from his office. In all, the case of respondent No.1 is that the no-confidence motion was passed in a meeting which was presided over by a person who was highly biased and prejudiced against him and on this aspect being established, the Commissioner has interfered and set aside the resolution passed in the no-confidence motion. It is submitted by Shri Sharma that the Commissioner having exercised jurisdiction vested in him under Statute and having recorded a finding wherein bias is established no case for interference by this Coul1 is made out in a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. . 5. That apart, it is submitted by Shri Sharma that it is only a case whereby the matter has been remitted back for reconsideration and because of disputes .involved, the matter be reconsidered and decided by an independent person who does not have any bias against the respondent. It is submitted by Shri Sharma that petitioner should again persue the no-confidence motion and should not run away from the meeting. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The only question which requires determination in the present petition is as to whether the so called bias and prejudice alleged by the petitioner on the Presiding Officer culminated in having its effect in the .proceedings which were held on 24.9.2001, due to which it can be concluded that the meeting was irregularly conducted or vitiated. A perusal of the order impugned goes to indicate that after recording the averments made by the parties in para 3 of the order, the Appellate authority namely, the Commissioner has recorded four grounds which required determination. As far as ground No.1, 3 and 4 are concerned, the same have been answered against respondent No.2 and the appellate authority has refused to interfere in the matter on 'these grounds. As far as ground No.1, 3 and 4 are concerned, the same have been answered against respondent No.2 and the appellate authority has refused to interfere in the matter on 'these grounds. It is only ground No.2 on the basis of which the Commissioner has interfered in the matter. Ground No. 2 pertains to effect of bias of the Presiding Officer into the meeting which was held and as to whether the meeting is vitiated or illegal because of his bias. 8. The aforesaid ground No.2 has been considered by the appellate authority in para 11 of this order. In para 11 of the order after recording the facts with regard to the selection of teachers in the Janpad Panchayat, the complaint made by respondent No. 1 with regard to appointment of the SDO's to the said post, effect with regard to filing of W.P. No. 1505/2000 have been narrated. Thereafter, the Commissioner has simply recorded a finding that because of these, S.D.O. has certain bias and prejudice against the said respondent. As is evident from the documents with regard to appointment of teachers. Because of these bias it has been held that the entire proceedings and meeting held by the SDO is vitiated. However, in doing so, the learned appellate authority has not stated as to how and in what manner the meeting is vitiated is irregular or contrary to statutory provisions or otherwise bad. Nothing has been indicated in the order to show as to what was the procedure followed for holding the meeting, what role was played by the Presiding Officer in the said meeting on the basis of which it can be said that the same was vitiated or illegally conducted. There is no mention or finding recorded in the impugned order on the basis of which it can be concluded that the meeting was not properly conducted, there is nothing to indicate that the members were not permitted to exercise their right in the meeting or the .Presiding Officer namely the SDO tried to influence the proceedings in any manner whatsoever. In fact, except for recording a finding that SDO was biased against respondent No. 1 because of complaints made by him, the appellate authority has not considered the aspect with regard to the role played by him in pursuance to the aforesaid bias or prejudice in conducting the meeting. In fact, except for recording a finding that SDO was biased against respondent No. 1 because of complaints made by him, the appellate authority has not considered the aspect with regard to the role played by him in pursuance to the aforesaid bias or prejudice in conducting the meeting. Thereafter, the appellate authority has considered the subsequent action of the SDO in holding the election after some interim order was passed on 8.10.2001 and has come to the conclusion that the entire proceedings are vitiated because of bias by the Presiding Officer. 9. The judgment relied upon by Shri Jain, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, clearly indicates that it is a well settled principles of law that on the ground of mere allegation of bias or even on apprehension of bias action of a particular independent person cannot be said to be illegal or vitiated until and unless it is established and demonstrated from the material on record that the said bias or prejudice has been converted into action and it is the said action which has affected the rights of the individual who has made the complaint. Question of bias and prejudice has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Giriraj Shankar Pant 2001(1) SCC 182 , it has been held in the aforesaid case on the basis of facts and circumstances existing in each individual case, it is to be established that the bias complained of has resulted in miscarriage of justice or proceedings were illegal because of which the action challenged is vitiated. Mere submission or apprehension of bias cannot be a ground for interference in the matter. Mere submission or apprehension of bias cannot be a ground for interference in the matter. After analysing not only various judgments on the point but also considering English law on the subject of bias, the Supreme Court in para 35 has concluded as under: "Para 35 The test, therefore, is as to whether a mere apprehension of bias or there being a real danger of bias and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be coli aged and necessary conclusion drawn there from in the event, however, the conclusion is otherwise inescapable that there is existing a real danger of bias, the administrative action cannot be sustained: If on the other hand, the allegations pertaining to bias is rather fanciful and otherwise to avoid a particular Court, Tribunal or authority, question of declaring them to be unsustainable would not arise. The requirement is availability of positive and cogent evidence and it is in this context that we do record our concurrence with the view expressed by the Court of Appeal in Locabail case." 10. Again in Para 10 and 11 it has been observed as under: "(10) The word "bias" in popular English parlance stands included within the attributes and broader purview of the word "malice", which in common acceptations means and implies "spite" or "ill-will" and it is now well settled that mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill-will. There must be cogent evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether in fact there was existing a bias which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. (11) While it is true that legitimate indignation does not fall within the ambit of malicious act, in almost all legal inquiries, intention, as distinguished from motive is the all-important factor. In common parlance, malicious act has been equated with intentional act without just cause or excuse. (Emphasis supplied) 11. The present case has to be viewed in the light of the aforesaid enunciation of law. As already indicated hereinabove, the appellate authority has recorded a finding that the Sub-Divisional Officer Shri Singh was biased against the petitioner. For coming to the said conclusion the appellate authority has held that because of the complaint made by the petitioner with regard to appointment of teachers, Shri Singh is biased against the petitioner. As already indicated hereinabove, the appellate authority has recorded a finding that the Sub-Divisional Officer Shri Singh was biased against the petitioner. For coming to the said conclusion the appellate authority has held that because of the complaint made by the petitioner with regard to appointment of teachers, Shri Singh is biased against the petitioner. It has also been held that because the petitioner had filed W.P. No. 1405/01, the Presiding Officer was bias against the petitioner. 12. As far as W.P. No. 1405/01 is concerned a copy of the order dismissing the petition dated 31.8.2001 has been produced before me by Shri R.D. Jain, learned Sr. Counsel for perusal during the course of hearing. A perusal thereof indicates that this was a public interest litigation filed by the petitioner and in the said petition the said SDO. Shri Singh is not a party petition was dismissed and while dismissing the petition certain observations have been made in which role of respondent No. 1 in the entire selection has been considered by the Court and certain adverse observations have been made there under. Prima facie, from the aforesaid petition except for the fact that the petitioner had made complaint with regard to interference in appointment by the SDO, no further allegations have been made. Even for a moment if it is accepted that for the reasons indicated by the respondent No.1, the said SDO was biased and prejudice against him that itself would not be sufficient to vitiate the meeting of no-confidence held in the matter. Requirement of law is that it has to be shown as to how the bias is reflected in the proceedings which are contended to be illegal or irregular, as indicated hereinabove, there is nothing on record to show that the meeting held on 24.9.2001 was vitiated in any manner whatsoever. From the material on record, there is nothing to come to the conclusion that the meeting was irregularly held, contrary to the statutory provisions or against any settled principles of law, circular, rule or regulations. The appellate authority while holding the meeting to be irregularly conducted did not look into this aspect of the matter. It was incumbent upon the appellate authority to examine the proceedings and then record a finding: that the proceedings are vitiated because of the bias of the SDO concerned who had presided over the meeting. The appellate authority while holding the meeting to be irregularly conducted did not look into this aspect of the matter. It was incumbent upon the appellate authority to examine the proceedings and then record a finding: that the proceedings are vitiated because of the bias of the SDO concerned who had presided over the meeting. That being so, since no such irregularity was either pointed out or established by respondent No. 1 interference into the same was not called for. Considering the aforesaid and on due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that from the records there is nothing to indicate that the so called apprehension, submission or averments with regard to bias of the Presiding Officer has resulted in conducting the meeting in a manner from which it can be said that it is irregular or contrary to law. Until and unless the aforesaid is established, no interference could be made. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.9.2002 declaring the motion of no confidence to be illegal or vitiated is quashed. 13. In view of the above the resolution dated 8.10.2001 will have to be given effect to and action in accordance to the same has to be taken. The finding recorded by the appellate authority in the impugned order to the effect that the resolution dated 8.10.2001 is automatically set aside is also quashed. Petition is accordingly allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.