Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Anguri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25453
1 WP-40050-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 9 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40050 of 2025
SMT. ANGURI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yash Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. Ekta Vyas - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
ORDER
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the notice dated 03.10.2025 issued by the
Prescribed Authority/respondent No.5, whereby the petitioner has been informed
that the respondent No.5 is in receipt of a notice signed by more than one-third of
the elected members of Gram Panchayat, Lahar Haveli expressing there no-
confidence against the petitioner. The said notice has been considered in terms of
Section 21 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj
Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as" the Act of 1993), and respondent
No.5, on being satisfied as regards the admissibility of the notice, has fixed a
meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion against the petitioner at
11:00 AM on 13.10.2025, to be held at Panchayat Bhavan, Gram Panchayat Lahar
Haveli, and thereby calling upon the petitioner to remain present in the meeting so
fixed.
3. The aforesaid notice dated 03.10.2025 has been challenged by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25453
2 WP-40050-2025
petitioner on the ground that the same does not fulfill the requirements of Section
21 (3) of the Act 1993 so also, the mandatory requirement as contained in Rule 3
and Rule 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch
Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha
Vice President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Rules of 1994) and therefore deserves to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the impugned notice dated
03.10.2025, submits that it is a mandatory requirement casted upon the
respondent No.5 to record his satisfaction as regards the admissibility of the notice
received for no-confidence against the petitioner in terms of Section 21 (3) of the
Act of 1993 which is totally lacking in the instant case. He further submits that in
terms of the Rule 3 (2) of the Rules of 1994. The Prescribed Authority is required
to sign a certificate stating the date on which and at which place the notice has
been given to him, and the acknowledgment thereof has to be issued which is not
there in the impugned notice dated 03.10.2025, rendering the same to be
unsustainable in the eyes of law. By further placing reliance on Rule 4 of the
Rules of 1994, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a separate order for
appointment of a Presiding Officer to preside the meeting of no-confidence is
required to be passed by the respondent No.5 which is also lacking in the instant
case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in terms of the
Section 21 (1) of the Act of 1993, prior to sending a notice expressing no-
confidence against the petitioner to the Prescribed Authority, a resolution of the
Gram Panchayat has to be passed by the majority not less than three-fourth of the
Panchas and in the instant case, the petitioner had placed on record the resolution
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25453
3 WP-40050-2025
of the Gram Panchayat, Lahar Haveli, held on 15.08.2025, 17.08.2025,
18.08.2025, 19.08.2025 and 20.08.2025 to show that the said resolutions nowhere
express any no-confidence against the petitioner. There is no resolution passed for
moving a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner and in the absence of
whereof, the impugned notice dated 03.10.2025 could not have been issued.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that notice fixing the
date of no-confidence motion is required to be dispatched through the Secretary of
the Gram Panchayat, whereas in the instant case, the impugned notice dated
03.10.2025 has been dispatched to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Pachayat,
Bhander which also violates the mandatory provisions of law.
7. By referring to Rule 4 of the Rules of 1994, learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the Prescribed Authority is required to inform the
Secretary of the Gram Panchayat regarding the appointment of the Presiding
Officer to preside the meeting of no-confidence at least three days before the date
fixed for the meeting whereas in the instant case, no such information has been
provided to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat three days in advance and
therefore, on this count also, the impugned notice dated 03.10.2025 deserves to be
interfered with. Learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance upon the
interim order dated 19.09.2005 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court,
Principal Seat at Jabalpur, in W.P.No.37810/2025, and the order dated 19.03.2025
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in
W.P.No.10116/2025, to contend that in identical circumstances, notice of no-
confidence motion has been stayed, and accordingly, the present notice also
deserves to be stayed, and the writ petition should be entertained.
8. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25453
4 WP-40050-2025
10. The Section 21 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram
Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 reads as under:
"21. No-confidence motion against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. -
(1) On a motion of no-confidence being passed by the Gram
Panchayat by a resolution passed by majority of not less than three
fourth of the panchas present and voting and such majority is more
than two third of the total number of Panchas constituting the Gram
Panchayat for the time being, the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against
whom such motion is passed, shall cease to hold office forthwith.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules made
thereunder a Sarpanch or an Up-Sarpanch shall not preside over a
meeting in which a motion of no-confidence is discussed against him.
Such meeting shall be convened in such manner as may be prescribed
and shall be presided over by an officer of the Government as the
Prescribed Authority may appoint. The Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch,
as the case may be, shall have a right to speak at, or otherwise to take
part in, the proceeding of the meeting.
(3) 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 dale on which previous motion of no-
confidence was rejected.
(4) If 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),
he shall, within seven days from the date on which such motion was
carried, refer the dispute to the Collector who shall decide it, as far as
possible, within thirty days from the date on which it was received by
him, and his decision shall be final."
11. The Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 reads as under:
"3. Notice. (1) Elected members of Gram Panchayat, Janpad
Panchayat or Zila Panchayat desiring to move a motion of no
confidence against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch of a Gram
Panchayat or President or Vice-President of Janpad or Zila Panchayat,
as the case may be, shall give a notice thereof to the prescribed
authority in the form appended to these rules :
Provided that such notice shall be signed by not less than one third of
the total number of elected members of the concerned Panchayat:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25453
5 WP-40050-2025
Provided further that where the elected members desire to move the
motion of no confidence against both the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch,
President and Vice-President of Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat,
as the case may be, they shall give separate notice.
(2) The prescribed authority, on receiving the notice under sub-rule
(1) shall sign thereon a certificate stating the date on which hour and
at which the notice has been given to him and shall acknowledge its
receipt.
(3) On receiving the notice under sub-rule (1), the prescribed
authority shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice
with reference to Sections 21 (3), 28 (3) and 35 (3), as the case may
be. On being thus satisfied, he shall fix the date, time and place for
the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat or Zila
Panchayat, as the case may be, which shall not be more than fifteen
days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The notice of such
meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof shall be caused to
be despatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat
or Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad or Zila Panchayat, as the
case may be, to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven
days before the meeting."
whereas the Rule 4 of the Rules of 1994 reads as under:
"4.Appointment of Presiding Officer. - The Prescribed Authority
shall appoint an officer of the Government under sub-section (2) of
Section 21, sub-section (2) of Section 28, or sub-section (2) of
Section 35 to preside over the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Janpad
Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be. For the purpose of
considering the no confidence motion against Sarpanch or Up-
Sarpanch, a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar,
against President or Vice-President of Janpad Panchayat [Officer not
below the rank of Deputy Collector] and against President or Vice-
President of Zila Panchayat the Collector or Additional Collector
shall be appointed to preside over such meeting and the prescribed
authority shall inform the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or Chief
Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat as the case
may be, and the Collector of the district about such appointment at
least 3 days before the date fixed for the meeting."
12. A perusal of the scheme of Section 21 of the Act of 1993 and the Rules
of 1994 clearly indicates that Section 21 (1) deals with the proceedings wherein,
the no-confidence motion against an elected Sarpanch/Up-Sarpanch is under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25453
6 WP-40050-2025
consideration, and in case, the motion is passed by a resolution of the Gram
Panchayat by a majority of not less than three fourth of the Panchas present and
voting, and such majority is more than two third of the total number of Panchas
constituting the Gram Panchayat for the time being, the Sarpanch/Up-Sarpanch
shall cease to hold office forthwith. Section 21 (1) does not deal with the stage at
which, a notice is sent by the elected members of Gram Panchayat to the
Prescribed Authority to move a motion of no-confidence again the Sarpanch/Up-
Sarpanch. The contention, thus, raised by the petitioner that even for issuance of a
notice fixing the date, time and venue for consideration of motion of no-
confidence against the elected office bearers, there has to be a resolution by the
Gram Panchayat passed by a majority of not less than three fourth of the Panchas
being wholly misconceived and baseless is hereby rejected.
13. The perusal of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 clearly indicates that in case,
the elected members of the Gram Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat, or Zila Panchayat
desiring to move a motion of no-confidence against a Sarpanch/Up-Sarpanch of
Gram Panchayat then they have to give a notice to the Prescribed Authority in the
form appended to the Rules of 1994. The only requirement for giving of such
notice is that it is required to be signed by not less than one third of the total
number of the elected members of the concerned Panchayat. The notice dated
03.10.2025 impugned in the instant writ petition clearly indicates that the
Prescribed Authority was in receipt of a notice issued by more than one third of
elected members of the Gram Panchayat, Lahar Haveli, and therefore he has
proceeded thereon.
14. The further contention of the respondents that the impugned notice
dated 03.10.2025 is required to record the reasons for satisfaction of the
respondent in terms of Section 21 (3) is also misconceived and baseless and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25453
7 WP-40050-2025
therefore, deserves rejection for the reason that in terms of Section 21 (3) of the
Act of 1993, the only satisfaction which is required to be made by the Prescribed
Authority as regards the validity of the notice of no-confidence moved by the
elected members of office bearers of the Panchayat is on completion of two and
half year from the date on which the Sarpanch/Up-Sarpanch enter their respective
office. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner had entered the office of
Sarpanch on 14.07.2022 and the period of two and half year has since expired, no
reasons are required to be recorded in the notice to be issued by the Prescribe
Authority in terms of the Rule either Section 21 (3) of the Act or Rule 3 (3) of the
Rules of 1994.
15. The perusal of the scheme of Rule 3 (2) of the Rules of 1994 further
indicates that the requirement of signing on a certificate stating the date on which
hour and which the notice has been given to the Prescribed Authority is the
requirement which is to be performed on the receipt of notice by the elected
members of the Gram Panchayat desiring to move a motion of no-confidence
against the Sarpanch and therefore, the certificate/acknowledgment receipt is
required to be issued to the said members who have moved the motion of no-
confidence. The Rule does not require issuance of certificate or acknowledgment
receipt to the person against whom the motion of no-confidence is sought to be
moved.
16. The further contention of the petitioner that a separate order for
appointment of the Presiding Officer to preside the meeting of no-confidence is
required to be passed in terms of Rule 4 of the Rules 1994 also appears to be
misplaced and misreading of the Rule. The only requirement under the Rule is for
an appointment of the Presiding Officer to preside the meeting of considering the
no-confidence motion. The perusal of the impugned notice dated 03.10.2025 in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25453
8 WP-40050-2025
Clause 4 clearly indicates that Shri Sunil Kumar Singh Bhadoria, Tehsildar has
been appointed as the Presiding Officer for the purposes of the meeting for
consideration of no-confidence motion against the petitioner scheduled to be held
on 13.10.2025 at 11:00 AM at Gram Panchayat Lahar Haveli. The impugned
notice dated 03.10.2025 also clearly indicates that the Secretary of the Gram
Panchayat, Lahar Haveli, has been directed to perform the necessary action.
Similarly, the notice has been transmitted to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad
Panchayat, Bhander for service of the notice on the petitioner and return of
acknowledgment to the respondent No.5. The requirement of appointment of the
Presiding Officer to preside over the meeting of no-confidence, the transmission
of notice for effecting service of the same on the petitioner and direction to the
Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Lahar Haveli for further necessary action is
contained in the notice dated 03.10.2025 itself. Admittedly, the notice dated
03.10.2025 has been received by the petitioner. In view of whereof, the grounds of
technical deficiencies, though none in the impugned notice dated 03.10.2025 ,
does not result in any prejudice to the petitioner and therefore, on the said ground,
the impugned notice dated 03.10.2025 cannot be said to be vitiated.
17. This Court in the case of Sukhnandan Patel Vs. State of M.P. and
Others, reported in 2003 (1) MPLJ 220 while considering the Rule 4 of the Rules
of 1994 has been pleased to hold that mere non-sending of the information to the
Collector of appointment of Presiding Officer under Rule 4 cannot nullify the
resolution of non-confidence carried by over by majority.
18. Even otherwise in the instant case, the appointment of the Presiding
Officer to preside the meeting of consideration of no-confidence motion has been
duly communicated to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat by the same
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25453
9 WP-40050-2025
impugned notice dated 03.10.2025 which is well within the limitation of three
days as provided under Rule 4 in as much as the Secretary is sought to be
informed 10 days in advance.
19. Even this Court in the case of Meena Bai Prem Lal Chaudhary vs. State
of M.P. and others, reported in 1999 (2) MPLJ 97 has held as under:-
"The second submission as advanced by the learned counsel was that
in the present case notice has been served by the Executive Officer
i.e. Secretary of the Gram Panchayat though such job should have
been done by a Peon. This submission is absolutely baseless. How
proceedings of no-confidence are effected by this service and how
proceedings become void on account of this service has not been
explained"
20. Thus, the proceedings of a no-confidence motion remains unaffected in
case, the service of notice is by a person other than the person prescribed under the
Rules.
21. The Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1994 have been the subject matter of
consideration by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhulin Dewangan Vs.
State of M.P. and Others , reported in 2000 (2) JLJ 253 and in para 15 of the said
judgment, the Full Bench of this Court has been pleased to hold that unless
substantial prejudice is shown to have been caused to the party affected by the
compliance/non-compliance with the procedural requirements as contemplated
under the said rules, the proceedings of a no-confidence motion cannot be
declared to be invalid.
22. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, and in the light of the
propositions of law as laid down by the Coordinate Bench as well as the Full
Bench of this Court, in the considered opinion of this Court the challenge putforth
by the petitioner to the notice dated 03.10.2025, on the grounds raised in the
petition, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the prayer for admission
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25453
10 WP-40050-2025
of the petition is declined, and the present petition, being devoid of merits, is
hereby dismissed.
23. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand closed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-
