Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Dispute- No confidence motion- Filing of dispute under sub- section (4) before Collectdr.-[l] Extension of time- Although there is no express provision in sub-section (4) to extend time for filing dispute before the Collector after expiry of7 days, there is no express bar againstgi'anting such an extension of time. High Court granted extension and allowed the writ petitioner to file dispute before the collector within seven days. Jagdish Prasad Soni v; State of M.P., 1999 (1) MPLJ SN 19. '[2]Sub-section (4) has been added by MP Act 2 of 1997 which has come into force 7-1-1997 hence, where no confidence motion has been passed after 7-1-1997, dispute in its respect should be referred to Collector. Kamla v. Sub.DivisionaIOfficer, 1997 (II) MPWN 153. [31 The Collector has no inherent power to extend time for presenting of a dispute under sub-section (4). But under the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, he can admit a dispute if he is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient reasons for not presenting the same within the time prescribed or that the applicant was prevented for sufficient reasons from filing the dispute within seven days of its passing by the Gram Panchayat. [4] Threat or undue pressure ..It requires an oral evidence to estab- lish that any kind of oral threat was executed to a particular Panch. Such , fact could have been proved only in a dispute referable under S.21(4) of the Act. Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of M.P., 2008 (2) MPLJ 205 = 2008(1) MPHT383. lO.A.' Expression of intention not proved.-A voter was required to cast his vote in favour of no confidence motion by putting the symbol of right mark and against it by putting a symbol of cross mark (x). One disputed ballot paper is liable to reject for the reason that ,everse mark of right 'symbol was put on the blank back side. Held, it will not convey any intention in specific of the voter and the same cannot be treated as a expression of intention within the meaning of election laws. Such ballot paper rightly rejected. Sunita Patel v. Collector, 2008 (3) MPLJ 248 = 2008(1) MPHT 302 = 2008(2) JLJ 26 = AIR 2008 (NOC) 802 MP. 10-B. Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 are applicable.-M.P. Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 are quite exhaustive and they would also cover the meetIngs, 'of no confidence \vith regard to various things for which no provision has been made in the M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch .. , . Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994. l1lustratively, Chap. x . of Nirvachan Niyam provides for countiqg of votes for which no specific .provision made in Avishwas Prastav Niyam and although counting is required to be made even in the meeting for,no confidence. 8unita Patel v. .__~FE![,~QQ.l:!J~tM!,J,.J .~1.!L::_2.908(1)MPHT302 = 2008(2) JLJ 26 = AI ••.2008 (NOC) 802 MP.