Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Sub-section (3) of Section 21 provides that no confidence motion shall not lie against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of one year from the date on which such person enters his office; six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, expires; one year from the date on which previous motion of no-confidence was rejected. Learned counsel for respondents submit that as the resolution carrying the motion was rejected by the Addl. Collector, therefore within one year from the date of the order of the Collector, the second motion would not lie. In the opinion of this Court, this argument is mis-conceived. Sub-section (3) of Section 21 provides that no-confidence motion shall not the against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of one year from the date on which previous motion of no-confidence was rejected. The learned Addl. Collector did not reject the motion of no-confidence; the Panchayat in its meeting did not reject the no-confidence motion; in fact the motion was carried in the Panchayat meeting, but the resolution carrying the motion was rejected, rather set aside by the Addl. Collector on the ground that the meeting was not proper and the motion was carried in an illegal manner. The order passed by the Addl. Collector on the earlier occasion would not mean that he has rejected the earlier no-confidence motion. The order as it stands would only mean that the manner in which the motion was carried was contrary to law and could not be approved. The learned Addl. Commissioner was certainly wrong in holding that after rejection of the first motion of no-confidence, the meeting could not be held or the motion could not be considered within one year. The learned Addl. Commissioner has not tried to appreciate the law in its true perspective and on its cursory reading has recorded the wrong findings. Even for the sake of repetition it is again observed that if a motion of no-confidence is rejected in the meeting or the motion of no-confidence is rejected by the Collector under Section 21 (4), then alone a second motion would not lie within one year from the date of rejection of the first motion, but if the resolution carrying the motion is set aside or quashed because of the procedural defects or non-observance of the mandatory provisions of law, then in such a situation such a motion can be re-considered in accordance with law because setting aside of the resolution carrying the motion would not mean that the motion itself was rejected.