Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivaji Rao Patil vs The Collector, Balaghat And Anr. on 17 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)MPHT175
ORDER Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated March 13, 2002, passed in Writ Petition No. 850/2002.
2. The petitioner was Vice-President, Janpad Panchayat, Baihar (Balaghat). No-confidence motion was passed against him on 12-11-2001. He appealed against this decision before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, however, without success. On the date when no-confidence motion was passed, 16 members were present out of which 13 voted in favour of no-confidence motion and three against it.
3. The ground of challenge is that the petitioner was not allowed to speak for or against the no-confidence motion in terms of Section 28(2) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, and one the members Smt. Urmila Bharadwaj was served with notice only on 8-11-2001, four days before the meeting instead of 7 days. These questions have been examined by the learned Single Judge. It is found that the petitioner may have right to speak or otherwise take part in the proceedings, but he did not request the Presiding Officer for allowing him to speak in his defence, though he was present in the meeting. Therefore, the contention that he was not allowed to speak in the meeting, has not been accepted. The provision does not require the Presiding Officer to ask the petitioner to speak, when he has not put up such a request. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is similar to Mahesh Prasad Choudhary v. State of M.P. [1997 (2) JLJ 397] and Smt. Bhulin Dewangan v. State of M.P. [2000(4) M.P.H.T. 69 (FB)], holding that such non-compliance would not vitiate result of no-confidence motion/meeting and that the petitioner has to prove serious prejudice caused to him or failure of justice.
4. In this case, the petitioner has lost majority having been defeated by 13 against three. The difference is substantial, therefore, no prejudice is caused by the way the meeting has taken place. His attempt is to assail the proceedings by inventing grounds and depend on pleas which he did not raise at the relevant time. Even proceedings show that he had chance to speak and in case, he did not speak, fault lies on him and not on the Presiding Officer. Similarly with regard to Smt. Urmila Bharadwaj, she had participated in the meeting, therefore, nothing much depends on the contention that she received the intimation late apart from the fact that it was issued well in time, which is in compliance with Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994. Therefore, we find no case for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge in this case. The appeal is dismissed.