Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 203 (MP)

Rakesh Yadav v. State of M. P.

2007-02-20

SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2007
ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners who are elected members of Zila Panchayat, Morena challenging the order Annexure P-l passed by the Minister Panchayat and Rural Development dated 12.5.2006 and also praying for quashing the proceedings pending before the said Minister under section 35, subsection (4) of the Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam. 2. The brieffacts of the case are that the present petitioners have moved no-confidence motion against respondent No. 5 towards elected Chairman of Zila Panchayat, Morena. The no-confidence motion was passed against respondent No.5 on 23.2.2006. The respondent No.5 moved a dispute before the Minister under section 35, sub-section (4) of the Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam. The order Annexure P-l was passed in the said proceedings. This order is an interim order whereby the Minister has stayed new elections for the post of the Chairman of the Panchayat. This order was stayed by this Court by order dated 19.5.2006 against which an SLP was preferred which was dismissed on 29.5.2006. After the order Annexure P-l was stayed, fresh elections for the post have already held and election petition challenging the said elections is also filed by respondent No.5 which is numbered as election petition No. 2/05-06 and is pending before the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that order Annexure P-l is illegal and without jurisdiction. The Minister had no jurisdiction to stay the fresh elections. 3. Now, this Court need not go into the said question as the order staying the election has already stayed by this Court and the fresh elections are already held. The Annexure P-l staying the election is now rendered infructuous. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings under section 35, sub-section (4) cannot continue as the fresh elections are already held and election petition is already filed. In support of this argument, counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to Article243-O and Article 14 of the Constitution of India which provides that once elections are held, the same can be set aside by way of election petition. The Division Bench of this Court considered this aspect in case of Kamla Durga Solanki (Smt.) v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2005 (1) JLJ 47 . The Division Bench of this Court considered this aspect in case of Kamla Durga Solanki (Smt.) v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2005 (1) JLJ 47 . In Para 20 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held that after filing of the proceedings under section 35, subsection (4), fresh elections for the post of President were held; hence, the only remedy for the petitioner in the writ petition was to challenge the election by way of election petition alleging therein that no-confidence motion was not passed properly and any other ground was available to the petitioner. 5. In view of this matter, now the proceedings under section 35, sub-section (4) against the present petitioner cannot continue and respondent No.5 can raise these grounds about the illegality of passing of no-confidence motion in the election petition filed by him before the appropriate authority. Thus, this petition stands allowed.