Pilvindar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 403 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pilvindar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2025

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                     1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                AT G WA L I O R
                                      BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                     WRIT PETITION No. 14715 of 2025
                               PILVINDAR SINGH
                                          Vs.
                          STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS


APPERANCE
       Shri Vijay Bhaskar Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.
       Shri G.K. Agarwal - Government Advocate for the State.
       Shri Ashish Shrivatava - Advocate for respondent No.5 on
caveat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Reserved on                           :      25/04/2025
        Delivered on                          :      6/5/2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind
Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

"i. The impugned order/notice dated 15-04-2025 (Ann. P/8) passed by the prescribed authority may please be quashed/set-aside.

ii. The illegal resolution dated 10-03-2025 (Ann. P/2) passed by the Panchs of Gram sabha Kumhraua, Janpad Panchayat Pichhore may also be quashed/set

aside in the interest of justice.

iii. The status of the petitioner (elected sarpanch) may please be upheld and allowed to work for the welfare of the residents of the village panchayat, Kumhraua, Janpad Panchayat -- Pichhore.

iv. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the prevailing circumstances of the case may also be granted.v. Cost may also be awarded."

2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kumbhraua, Janpad Panchayat Pichhore, District Shivpuri and had assumed the charge as Sarpanch w.e.f. 14.07.2022. The strength of the Panchayat in total is 19 (Panchs) including Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. Earlier to present notice, some of the Panchs tried to move a No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner with fabricated signatures of 8 Panchs, to which they raised objections and filed their affidavits on 22.01.2025 before the Prescribed Authority, stating that they are not in support of no confidence. Thereafter, the Panchs called for general body meeting on 10.03.2025 about passing of the resolution of no confidence motion against the present petitioner (Sarpanch) vide Resolution dated 10.03.2025.

3. Respondent No.5 and others on 01.04.2025 had filed a petition under Section 21 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Picchore, District Gwalior for initiating proceedings of No-Confidence Motion notice against the petitioner (present Sarpach), which was registered as Case No.3 of 2025-26 and thereafter, a notice of the petition was issued to the petitioner on 02.04.2025 for his appearance on 08.04.2025. The petitioner appeared on the said date and submitted an application alongwith eight

affidavits and application of 08 Panchs dated 22.01.2025 in his support and thereafter, filed his response against the said No-Confidence Motion, to which, respondent No.5 had filed his objections.

4. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Prescribed Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Picchor, District Shivpuri accepted the notice of No- Confidence Motion against the petitioner and has appointed Jurisdictional Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar) for convening the meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion vide order dated 15.04.2025. The Tehsilidar, on receiving a notice under the provisions of M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice- President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 and after satisfying himself about the admissibility of notice, had fixed a date, time and place for the meeting of Gram Panchayat to consider No-Confidence Motion vide communication dated 16.04.2025. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that according to the Rules made under M.P. Gram Sabha (Procedure of Meeting) Rules, 2001, the meeting is required to be held at the headquarter of the Gram Sabha concerned, and herein case, the meeting was held at the campus of the Middle School situated at Gram Panchayat Kumhraua and according to the language of the meeting dated 10.03.2025, it is clearly revealed that a proposal of No-Confidence Motion against the Sarpanch was forwarded without acceptance of the said resolution, which is not tenable in the eyes of law.

6. It was further submitted that when a Meeting is called for discussion and for passing of No- Confidence Motion, before passing such resolution, it is mandatory to "dispatch" the notice to call for such a meeting upon all

Panchs before 07 clear days of the date fixed for meeting and if no such notice is dispatched, motion passed in such meeting shall be null and void.

7. While placing reliance on Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994, it was further submitted that when a Meeting is called for discussion and No-Confidence Motion before passing such resolution, it is mandatory to "dispatch" the notice to call for such a meeting upon all the Panchs before 07 clear days of the date fixed for meeting, but the same was not done, thus, since the Prescribed Authority had not followed the due procedure of law, it could be violation of doctrine of a procedural legitimate expectation; thus, the very notice fails. While placing reliance on provisions of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 of the M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994, it was submitted that the Prescribed Officer on receiving the notice is required to satisfy himself about its admissibility and on being satisfied, he shall fix the date, time and place for the meeting, which shall not be more than 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said notice, but herein case, the notice which has been received by the Prescribed Officer on 01.04.2025, it had accepted on 15.04.2025 and has fixed the date on 29.04.2025 (after 28 days) for the meeting of Gram Sabha.

8. It was further submitted that the notice of meeting for the purpose of No-Confidence Motion needs to be issued by Chief Executive Officer whereas in the present case, the Sub-Divisional Officer had entrusted this job to Jurisdictional Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar), which is bad in law. To bolster his submissions, reliance was placed in the matters of Nazir Ahmad vs. King Vee Emperor reported in A.I.R. 1936 SC 253 and Shrinarayan Tiwari vs. State of M.P. reported in 1998 (1) JLJ 124.

9. Per contra, Shri G.K. Agrawal- learned Govt. Advocate for the State as well as the Counsel for respondent No.5 on caveat while supporting the proceedings of No-Confidence Motion and the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer had submitted that the proceedings of No-Confidence Motion were in consonance with Rules 3 and 5 of the Niyam, 1994. Learned counsel for the respondents heavily relied on the Full Bench judgment of this Court, reported in 2000 (4) MPHT 69 (Smt. Bhulin Dewangan vs. State of MP).

10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. Parties are on loggerheads on the question with regard to validity of No-Confidence Motion proceedings.

12. As per the record, on 10.03.2025, 15 members of Gram Panchayat Kumbhraua, Janpad Panchayat Pichhore, District Shivpuri passed a resolution bringing a motion of no confidence against the present petitioner, who was a Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat by a majority of two-third out of total members of 19 Panchs constituting a Gram Panchayat and had forwarded the same to the competent authority on 12.03.2025, but when no action was taken by the prescribed authority, who is the Sub-Divisional Officer in the present matter, as the no confidence motion pertains to Gram Panchyat, therefore, a petition under Section 21 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 was filed before the prescribed authority on 01.04.2025, which was registered as Case No.03/2025-26. In pursuance to the said petition, on 02.04.2025, notice was issued to the petitioner for his appearance on 08.04.2025. On 08.04.2025, the petitioner appeared before the prescribed authority and submitted an application supported by eight affidavits of Panchs dated 22.02.2025 wherein it was averred that the petitioner is doing well and they are supporting him, therefore, no motion confidence be turned down. The petitioner also filed response to the said no

confidence motion on the very same day. The prescribed authority on 15.04.2025 accepted the notice of no confidence motion and fixed the date for 29.04.2025 for convening the meeting. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present petition is filed.

13. The first contention of the petitioner is that the prescribed authority on receiving the notice under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 had not satisfied itself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to Section 21(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and since the said satisfaction has not been recorded and had fixed the date, the entire proceedings are vitiated and thus deserve to be quashed.

14. Section 21(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 provides that "no-confidence motion shall not lie against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of; (i) two and half year from the date on which the Sarpanch or Up- Sarpanch enter their respective Office; (ii) six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, expires; (iii) six months from the date on which the previous motion of no-confidence was rejected.

15. Herein case, the petitioner had assumed the Office of Sarpanch on 14.07.2022. As per the contention of the respondents in their petition under Section 21 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, resolution of no-confidence motion was passed on 10.03.2025 which was clearly after a period of two & half years from the date on which the petitioner has assumed the Office. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that satisfaction of no confidence has not been recorded by the prescribed authority with regard to Section 21(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1993, therefore, the order is bad in law has no force, as admittedly from the record, the no-confidence was brought by the majority of the members after a period of two and half years from the date of assuming of the charge by the petitioner and thus, fixing of the date, time

and place for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat cannot be faulted with and also since the date fixed by the prescribed authority was 29.04.2025, which was not more than 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice by the prescribed authority, therefore, on this count also, fixing of the meeting cannot be faulted with.

16. The another contention of the petitioner is that since no clear seven days' notice was sent by the prescribed authority specifying the date, time and place through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat to every member of the Panchayat concerned has been issued, therefore, serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and other persons, thus, has rendered issuance of notice of such meeting otiose is concerned, firstly except for the statement, there is nothing on record to prima facie establish that no clear seven days' notice had been issued by the prescribed authority through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat to the members of the Panchayat concerned and secondly, there is no material to show that any serious prejudice has been caused to the members of the Panchayat concerned. Even otherwise, in the light of order of this Court in the matter of Bhulin Dewangan vs. State of M.P. reported in 2001 (2) MPLJ 372, though the provisions regarding issuance of notice is mandatory and if it not complied, it is still open to the prescribed authority to find out whether it has caused serious prejudice to any of the party or whether it has resulted in failure of justice, thus, the said aspect could be raised before the prescribed authority by the party concerned who was required to be sent seven days clear notice and to demonstrate that non-issuance of such notice within the aforesaid period has caused serious prejudice to him; thus, this ground has also no force.

17. So far as ground raised by the petitioner that no meeting on 10.03.2025 was held and resolution was bad in law is concerned, the

petitioner had an opportunity under Section 21(4) of the Adhiniyam, 1993 to challenge the validity of the motion carried out under Sub-section (1) within seven days from such motion by referring a dispute to the Collector who would have decided the said dispute within 30 days from the date on which it was received by him but it appears from the petition that no such dispute was referred to the Collector by the petitioner, thus, challenge to the resolution alleging that no meeting was held on the said date is wholly misconceived.

18. The objection of the petitioner that resolution was not passed by two-third majority, can very well be seen at the time of the meeting called by the prescribed authority for passing of the resolution of no-confidence motion.

19. Thus, this Court in the light of aforesaid discussion, finds that there is no sum and substance in the present petition, therefore, the admission is declined and the present petition is hereby dismissed.

(Milind Ramesh Phadke) Judge PAWAN pwn* KUMAR

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f265f02 d9d593f, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4FD4455ED49EA436EA65E26164BEEED891 53191C56E98CE21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.05.07 11:52:11 +05'30'