Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
[5] Resolution f<;>ror against passed in a meeting called for considering motion ofno~confidence.AppeaI or revision against not competent-Expression "carried out"- Appeal and Revision Rules of 1995, Rr. 3 and 5.-The provision made in sub-section (4) provides for reference of a dispute to the Collector for his decision where the Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, desires to challenge the validity of the motion carried out under sub-section (1). The expression "carried out" " employed in the said sub-section can only mean the consequence' provided' in sub-section (1) which clearly indicates thatit is only against a motion of no confidence passed by the requisite majority that such a dispute under sub-section (4) can be raised by the person against whom the motion has been passed. It is clear that an appeal under rule 3 of the Appeal and Revision Rules of1995 was not maintainable against a no-confidence motion whether carried or failed and the Additional Collector therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. A perusal of rule 5 shows that a revision is maintainable as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by the subordinate authority or to the regularity of proceedings before such authority. A no-confidence cannot beclassifiedeither as an order or as a proceeding. :'\0 specific power of Revision has been granted in rule 5 against a no confidl 'Ilce motion. The no-confidence motion, not being any proceeding in a cas£>,i:::i not amenable to the jurisdiction of an authority in exercise of the power of revision granted by rule 5. 1998 (1) MPLJ 427 ReI. Ramnath Kaushik v. State of M.P., 1999 (2) MPLJ