Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 311 (MP)

Munni Devi v. State of M. P.

2013-03-07

S.K.Gangele

body2013
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order Annexure P/1 dated 18.2.2013 and Annexure P/2 dated 23.2.2013. 2. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in the year 2009. No-confidence motion was moved against the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer. Out of total 21 members, 13 members supported the no-confidence motion and filed their affidavits. The Sub Divisonal Officer appointed the Tahsildar, Bhind as Presiding Officer to preside over the meeting. The date of Meeting to consider the no-confidence motion was fixed as 9.11.2012. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Collector on the ground that in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchyat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice President Ke Viruddh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1994’) the notice was not issued before seven days. The Collector vide order dated 18.2.2013 set aside the order of fixing the date of meeting and remanded the case to the Sub Divisional Officer for convening another meeting. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.2.2013, the Sub Divisional Officer fixed the date of meeting as 7.3.2013. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the order of Sub Divisional Officer fixing the date of meeting is against law, because in accordance with section 21(3) of MP Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Adhiniyam of 1993), no no-confidence motion shall lie within a period of six months and the provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1993 have not been followed in fixing the date of meeting. 4.The arguments advanced by learned senior counsel that no no-confidence motion shall lie within a period of six months from earlier no-confidence motion in view of section 21(3) of the Adhiniyam of 1993 could not be accepted. The relevant section is as under:- “21.(3) No-confidence motion shall not lie against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of- (i) [two and half year] from the date on which the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch enter their respective office; (ii) six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, expires; (iii) [six months] from the date on which previous motion of no-confidence was rejected.” 5. In accordance with the aforesaid section, if the previous motion of no-confidence was rejected, then within six months another no-confidence motion could not be considered. In the present case, no-confidence motion was not taken into consideration by the members of the Gram Panchayat, for which, the date was fixed by the Sub Divisional Officer and that order was quashed by the Collector exercising revisional power on the ground that seven days’ time was not granted to the members of the Gram Panchayat for consideration of no-confidence motion in accordance with Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994. 6. The next ground of challenge is that when earlier motion was defeated, then second date of meeting could not be fixed. That, contention also could not be accepted, because when the date of convening the meeting in accordance with Rule 3(3) of the Rules of 1994 for consideration of no-confidence motion was held not to be proper, then subsequently, the Sub Divisional Officer has fixed the date of meeting as 7.3.2013 vide order dated 23.2.2013. The aforesaid order is in accordance with law and in accodenace with the Rules of 1994. 7. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.