Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
[3J Effect of no-confidence resolution.-In the instant case the Sar- panch was suspended and the Up-Sarpanch was appointed as Prabhari Sarpanch. No confidence motion moved against Prabhari Sarpanch. Motion not moved against petitioner as Up-Sarpanch, therefore, no-confidence motion was not passed against petitiolll'r as Up-Sarpanch. Jagdish Prasad Soni v. State of M.P., 1999 MPLJ NOC 8. 13A]Not validly passed.-DisllUtea ballot paper was liable to reject hence no confidence motion was not validly passed for want of requisite strength i.e. 3/4th. Sunita Patel v. (',,/lector, 2008 (3) MPLJ 248 = 2008(1) MPHT 302 = 2008(2) JLJ 26 = AlH 2008 (NOC) 802 MP. 13B] Resolution was passed by the majority - No confidence motion cannot be declared as null & void.-No prejudice has been pointed out by the SarpanchlResp. NO.1 in any manner and the resolution was passed by overwhelming majority, Le. 16 out of 21 in favour of the no - clll1fidente, rootion' and said officet wascoIi\petent to preside over the ,peeting.,The Resp. No. 1 has also notraised this objection of incompetence of the Presiding Officer during the no confidence motion. The Collector's oroer is, set .aside and the resolution passed in meeting be .given full effect to. 2003(5) MPHT 502 (DB), Relied on. Ghanshyam Yadav v. Rameshwar Sahu, 2007(1) MPHT 86 (C.G.). [3C] No Stay.-It is true that in terms of the Sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of Adhiniyam once 'No Confidence Motion' is carried out against a .' '. I:l , ! , , 2) a ; n. Ld I re :h ,e :h 19 >n 'e til ty at nt ,e- lW .d ld ;e. 53 I id '0- vil 3 ,n- he ,Ie Ire ,nt lce ,er ed ng 15 he IT , it 'as Lch , lhe , ihe I 8.21 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 .- (PA)53 (PA)52 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 8.21 6, Principle of natural justice to be followcd.-[l] Sub-secrion (2) further speaks that a Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch shall not preside over a meeting in which a motion of no-confidence is to be discussed against him. Generally a meeting of Gram Panchayat is presided over by a Sarpanch aRd in his absence, the Up- Sarpanch presides such a meeting. In a case where the motion of no-confidence is to be discussed against either the Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, leaving aside the one against whom the motion is to be discussed, whether the other person namely, the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom there is no motion of no-confidence, can preside the meeting or not. The answer would be 'N 0'. A meeting called for considering a motion of no-confidence is a special meeting and sub-section (2) says that it will be convened in such manner as may be prescribed, i.e. as per rules and shall be presided over by an officer ofthe Government as the prescribed authority may appoint. Looking to this provision, the normal procedure would not apply and the meeting shall be presided over by an officer of the Government only and ]wither by a Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch. l2] Since the passing of no-confidence motion results in adverse conse- quence of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch vacating the elected office, the law incorporates the principle of natural justice that the office bearer concerned . should have an opportunity to participate in the motion and to speak and take part in the proceedings so as to regain' the confidence .of the House. Bhulin Dewangan v. State of M.P., 2000 (4) MPHT 69=2000 (2) JLJ 253 -- (FB). [3JProcedure.- The Rules framed under the Act lay down a time bound procedure for ensuring proper conduct of the proceedings of the no-con- fidence motion. As passing of no-confidence motion entails serious civil consequences against the concerned office bearer sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 prescribes a time limit for calling a fill'pting for consideration of no-con- fidence motion and sending of notice in advance of the meeting to all the members ofthe Panchayat. The expression Used in the first part of the rule for fixing the date, time and place for the meeting is 'which shall not be more than 15 days from the date of receipt oftlw said notice'. The legislative intent behind the rule clearly appears to be that when a notice of no-confidence motion duly signed by the requisite not less than lI3rd of the total number of elected members of the concerned Panchayat is received, the prescribed authority shall not be allowed to sit idle over it for an unreasonable long period of time. it is enjoined on him that he shall within not more than 15 days from the receipt of the notice by him, call a meeting for considering the no confidence motion. Bhulin Dewangan v. State of M.P., 2000 (4) MPHT 69=2000 (2) JLJ 253 (FB). [4] Where no confidence motion was passed by requisite majority, it matters little whether opportunity to debate and discuss the motion was provided or not. Mahesh Prasad v. State of M.P., 1997 (2) JLJ 397 .. 6-A. Right to speak.-[ll Under Sub-section (2) of S.21, the Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall have a right to speak in the nleeting of no-confidence motion and have a right to take part in the proceedings ofthe meeting. ..-. , 1 [4} Efff'l"t (\t non.service of notice of'meeting on one or few memb«-"."s.-It' tilt.". Illotion IS validly passed by the requisite majority, mere non-service of notice of meeting on one or more members would not render the passing of no-confidence motion invalid. The latter part of sub-rule (3) of rule' 3 uses the word 'shall be caused' indicating clearly that the rule is mandatory and requires due compliance. Bhulin Dewangan v, State of M.P" 2000 (4) MPIIT 69=2000 (2) JLJ 253 (FE), [5] Mode of service of notice,-As far as mode of service of notice, the Panchayat (Method of ServIce of notice and document) -Rules, 1995 may be referred. The different modes prescribed by rule 3 for service of notice include 'giving or tendering the notice or document to the person concerned'. In the absence of notice, giving or tendering the same to some adult member - or servant of the family, sending the same by post under certificate of posting, If the member resides beyond the jurisdiction of Pane hay at and his address is known, by sending the same to hiIii by registered post acknow- ledgment due, The Rules also prescribe the substituted mode of service. In the light of these rules prescribing various modi's of service of notice, the word 'dispatch' would'mean giving or sending for transmission the notice in the manner prescribed in the Rules of 1995 so as to reasonably ensure its service, I£the dispatch of notices is not in the mpde prescribed for its service, there would be no proper compliance of the requirement of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994. Bhulin Dewangan v. State of M.P., 2000 (4) MPIIT 69=2000 (2) JLJ 253 (FB), presence, if he so desires, in the meeting to be held on such vital issue of passing of no-confidence motion. Bhulin Dewangan v. State of M.P., 2000 (-:I)MPIIT 69=2000 (2) JLJ 253 (FB). [3] Meaning of the word 'dispatch',-The legislature has designedly used the expression 'the notice of such. meeting specifying date, time and place thereof shall be caused to be dispatched by him through the Secretary' of the Panchayat concerned. The use of the word 'dispatch' appears to be deliberate and it cannot be read as 'receipt' of the notices by members of the Panchayat. The law intends that the notice of meeting should be sent to the members concerned seven days in advance of the meeting to enable them to participate in the motion of no-confidence. The rule does not convey any intention 'that the motion of no-confidence should be taken up only after each and every member of the Panchayat has been actually served with the notice. Use of word 'dispatch' in the rule is clearly with a view that merely on non-service of notice of meeting on one or few members, the consideration of ~otion of no-.confidence should not be frustrated, as in any case the "passing of it depends on existence of the requisite majority. . " . The word 'dispatch' should be assigned both a literal and legal meaning otherwise it is open to wicked abuse in the hands of concerned authority who may act in collusion with any oftheelected members. It is not merely sending or giving of notice of meeting in the manner best suited to the liking of the Secretary o(thePanchayat. The word is analogous to the word 'issue'. Bhulin D"I('(I/l~(mv, Stale of M.P" 200Q (4) MPIIT 69=2000 (2) JLJ 253 . (FB}, . II • (PA)51 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., I993 8,21 ,. i , , .' ~il:I I,I I IfI ), , J' I I, f' j e e f e o e s ,f d s h e •" L I I' ~ 1 ) ,-.- s t 1j e 1 " " r I { 7, , , I l . i, \ 8.21 PANCHAYAT RAJ AVAM GRAM SWARAJ ADHI., 1993 provision with regard to toss of coin in case of equality of votes is already deleted by an amendment. SojiNayak v. State of M.P., 1999 (1) MPLJ 174= 1997 (2) JLJ