Skip to content


Vasant Rao Krishna Rao Kinhekar Vs. Gram Panchayat, Lanji and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Petn. No. 112 of 1971
Judge
Reported inAIR1972MP83; 1972MPLJ240
ActsMadhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962 - Sections 31
AppellantVasant Rao Krishna Rao Kinhekar
RespondentGram Panchayat, Lanji and ors.
Appellant AdvocateB.C. Verma, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateKu. Rama Gupta, Adv. for No. 1 and ;J.P. Bajpai, Dy. Adv. General for Nos. 2 and 3
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - 2. on 26-10-1970, a no-confidence motion was moved against the petitioner, but it was defeated. the main contention of the petitioner is that the second resolution of no-confidence could not have been moved within six months of the first no-confidence motion defeated on 26-10-1970. reliance is placed on section 31 of the madhya pradesh panchayats act. ' the submission is that the expression 'no subject once finally disposed of' includes a no-confidence motion as well. allowing such a person to occupy the post for a period of six months even when he has lost confidence is contrary to the well-established notions of democracy......for quashing the resolution of no-confidence dated 30-1-1971 passed by the panchas of the said gram panchayat. 2. on 26-10-1970, a no-confidence motion was moved against the petitioner, but it was defeated. on 9-1-1971. a fresh requisition notice was served for moving a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. a meeting was held on 30-1-1971 when the no-confidence motion was passed. the main contention of the petitioner is that the second resolution of no-confidence could not have been moved within six months of the first no-confidence motion defeated on 26-10-1970. reliance is placed on section 31 of the madhya pradesh panchayats act. 1962, which reads as under: '31. no subject once finally disposed of by gram panchayat shall be reconsidered by it within six months unless the.....
Judgment:

Bhave, J.

1. The petitioner, who was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Lanji, district Balaghat. has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari for quashing the resolution of no-confidence dated 30-1-1971 passed by the Panchas of the said Gram Panchayat.

2. On 26-10-1970, a no-confidence motion was moved against the petitioner, but it was defeated. On 9-1-1971. a fresh requisition notice was served for moving a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. A meeting was held on 30-1-1971 when the no-confidence motion was passed. The main contention of the petitioner is that the second resolution of no-confidence could not have been moved within six months of the first no-confidence motion defeated on 26-10-1970. Reliance is placed on Section 31 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act. 1962, which reads as under:

'31. No subject once finally disposed of by Gram Panchayat shall be reconsidered by it within six months unless the recorded consent of not less than three-fourths of its Panchas has been obtained thereto, or unless the prescribed authority has directed its reconsideration.'

The submission is that the expression 'No subject once finally disposed of' includes a no-confidence motion as well. What is prohibited under this section is reconsideration of the same subject. When a no-confidence motion is moved against any person, it is based on certain allegations available at a particular time and when a second no-confidence motion is moved on some other allegations, it cannot be said that the same subject-matter was brought for reconsideration. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this section in terms does not refer to no-confidence motion.

3. Apart from this, there are other reasons why this contention cannot be accepted. Chapter III of the M.P. Panchayats Act, 1962, consists of two parts, namely, constitution and conduct of business. In the first part is included Section 24 which, provides the procedure for moving no-confidence motion. Rules are also made under that section. The section read with the Rules provides a complete and independent procedure as compared to other resolutions that can be passed by the Gram Panchayat in the conduct of its business. In the second part of Chapter III, which is styled as Conduct of Business, Section 29 provides that rules can be made for the procedure to be followed at a meeting of the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat. Section 30 makes provisions for how and when and the manner in which the meetings of the Gram Panchayat can be held or called. Then comes Section 31 which provides that no subject once finally disposed of by the Gram Panchayat should foe allowed to be reconsidered within six months. It is thus obvious that Section 31 refers to the meetings of the Gram Panchayat called for the conduct of business and it does not refer to the special meeting for no-confidence motion specially provided for. Democratic process requires that a person having lost confidence of the elected body cannot be allowed to function as its president or chairman. Allowing such a person to occupy the post for a period of six months even when he has lost confidence is contrary to the well-established notions of democracy. We are therefore, of the opinion that the Legislature while enacting Section 31 could not have intended to set at nought the said democratic process.

4. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of opinion that there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that no-confidence motion could not have been moved against him within six months. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is fixed at Rs. 100/- to be equally divided between the first and the third respondents. The remaining amount of security after deduction of costs shall be refunded to the petitioner.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //