Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(17)(A member who has given notice of a motion shall, when called on, either.-

(a) state that he does not wish to move the motion, or

(b) move the motion in which case he shall commence his speech by a formal motion in the terms appearing on the list of business, after the motion is duly seconded.

17. Thus, Rule 17 provides that the person who has submitted notice of the motion shall move the motion in the meeting. Rule 20 deals with how amendments to the motion can be proposed. Rule 21 deals with how a person who wants to speak on a motion has to address. What should be the duration of the speech and what is the decoram to be followed in speaking at the meeting. Thus, in these Rules provisions in detail have been made for the conduct of the meeting both ordinary and special of the village panchayat.

However, such provisions of the Meeting Rules which are found to be contrary to the provisions contained either in the Act in relation to the holding of the special meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch or in the No Confidence Motion Rules would not apply to a meeting called under Section 35. Now taking up the question whether specifically provisions of Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules apply to a meeting called under Section 35 is concerned, in our opinion, the provisions of Section 17 will apply in a meeting called under Section 35. As observed above Section 35 contains a provision for submission of requisition by members to the Tahsildar for calling a special meeting of the village panchayat to consider the motion of no confidence against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch. It casts a duty on the Tahsildar to call a meeting for that purpose within seven days of the receipt of the requisition. But Section 35 does not contain any provision as to how that meeting is to be conducted, save and except to provide that the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch concerned shall have a right to attend and participate in that meeting. We have already observed above that perusal of No Confidence Motion Rules and the Form of the requisition shows that when the members of the village panchayat submit the requisition to the Tahsildar , what they actually do is that they request the Tahsildar to convene a special meeting of the village panchayat so that in that meeting they can move a motion of no confidence against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch. It is, thus, clear that moving of the motion of no confidence is not by submission of requisition to the Tahsildar. The requisition is only for calling a special meeting to facilitate moving of motion of no confidence. The motion of no confidence is actually moved in the meeting of the village panchayat and as there is no contrary provision to be found either in the Act or in the No Confidence Motion Rules, in relation to moving of a motion in a meeting of the village panchayat, Rule 17 of the Meeting Rules which makes such a provision will apply. In the Meeting Rules there is a provision made for calling a special meeting of village panchayat because a requisition is received from members.

Even before expiry of a period of one year from the date on which earlier motion was passed, a fresh motion of no confidence was moved which was carried. The challenge in the matter before the Apex Court was to subsequent motion of no confidence on the ground of bar created by sub section3-A. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said decision the Apex Court held thus:-

"5.The significant words in the above provisions are "if the motion is not moved or is not carried" then no such fresh motion shall be moved .....within a period of one year from the date of rejection of the motion. The question is whether the first motion which ended in the manner indicated above can be treated as a motion not moved or not carried by the requisite majority. In our opinion the first motion does not fall in this category. The first motion which was passed on 8.3.1995, was carried by the requisite majority but it became ineffective because the Commissioner on appeal by the Sarpanch held the Motion of No Confidence to be invalid for want of the requisition notice of holding the special meeting on 8.3.1995. The Bar contained in sub -section (3A)of section 35 of the Act does not cover such a situation.

20. The question , thus, that arises for consideration is "whether the Collector who is hearing the Reference under Section 3-B has the power to direct the Tahsildar to convene a fresh meeting of the village panchayat for the same purpose after finding that the motion of no confidence was not validly passed?"

21. For that purpose the provisions of sub-section 3-B to Section 3-D of Section 35 quoted above are relevant. It is clear from the scheme of Section 35 that if the presiding authority at the special meeting of the village panchayat convened for considering the motion of no confidence against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch declares that the motion moved against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch is carried, then the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch concerned have an option of referring the dispute within seven days to the Collector and if the reference is made within a period of seven days then the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch concerned continues in the office, in other words, passing of the motion of no confidence in the meeting does not take effect. The power of the Collector to whom the reference is made is to decide the dispute referred to him. The dispute before the Collector would be "whether the motion of no confidence was validly passed or not?" The consequence of his decision is provided in sub-section 3-D of Section 35. If he declares that the motion was validly carried, then the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch concerned ceases to hold office. If he declares that such a motion was not validly carried, then the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch continues to hold the office. There is no power conferred by Section 35 on the Collector who hears the dispute referred to him by Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch to issue any direction to the Tahsildar for convening a fresh special meeting on the basis of the same requisition. The power of the Collector is confined to making a declaration whether the motion is validly carried or not. In case the Collector decides that the motion is not validly carried, the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch concerned continues in the office. In that situation, it is for the Tahsildar to consider whether he is competent to convene a fresh meeting on the basis of the same requisition or not, and it is at that juncture it is for the Tahsildar to consider whether he can call a meeting after expiry of a period of seven days? Whether the requisition received by him is extinguished or not? But the Collector exercising his powers under Section 3-B does not have the power to issue any direction to the Tahsildar in relation to convening of a fresh meeting. If the Collector does not have that power, the appellate authority, which hears the appeal against the order of the Collector, also will not have that power. Consequently, this court which hears the petition filed under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution against the order made by the Collector and/or Commissioner under Section 35 of the Act will also not be in a position to issue directions to the Tahsildar to convene a fresh meeting on the basis of the same requisition. Because the power to decide whether to convene the meeting or not to convene the meeting by the provisions of Section 35 is vested only in the Tahsildar. In a given case, if the Collector finds that the motion was not validly carried and if according to members who had given the requisition, the Tahsildar should call for a fresh meeting on the basis of the same requisition, it is for the members to move the Tahsildar and then it is for the Tahsildar to consider the question and take appropriate decision. If the decision of the Tahsildar is challenged before this court in a petition, in that petition probably this court may be in a position to issue an appropriate directions to the Tahsildar, but the direction to the Tahsildar for convening fresh meeting on the basis of same requisition cannot be issued by this court when it is hearing the petition against the order of the Collector and/or Commissioner passed under Section 35 of the Act. In this view of the matter, therefore, in these proceedings it is not necessary for us to consider as to how the Tahsildar has to exercise his power of convening a special meeting. Because according to us in a proceeding under sub-section 3-B of Section 35 no directions can be issued for convening a fresh meeting of the village panchayat on the basis of the same requisition by the Collector who hears the dispute referred to him in relation to the validity or otherwise of the motion of no confidence. The question referred to us is accordingly so answered.