@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K.K. Lahoti, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, dated 3-12-2003, by which, the petition, challenging the no confidence motion passed against him, has been dismissed.
Short facts of the case are that the petitioner was President of Janpad Panchayat, Niwas. A no confidence motion was moved against the petitioner. The notice was served on the prescribed authority, who is the Collector, Mandla to convene the meeting to consider the no confidence motion. The Collector on receiving the notice under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 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 (hereinafter referred to as ''Niyam'' for short), and after satisfying himself about the admissibility of notice fixed a date, time and place for the meeting of Janpad Panchayat to consider the no confidence motion. Notice in this regard was issued by the Collector, Mandla Annexure P-1 and on 31-7-2003 the meeting was convened. In that meeting no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner. Assailing the aforesaid, petitioner filed a petition u/s 28 (4) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ''Adhiniyam'' for short) before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, which was dismissed by order (Annexure P-4).
Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the Collector, who was the prescribed authority ought not to have issued notice (Annexure P-1) and the notice ought to have been issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. In the circumstances, notice (Annexure P-1) was issued without any authority of law. Reference is made to Section 28 (2) of Adhiniyam and Niyam 3 (3), which reads as under :--
"28. No-confidence motion against President or Vice- President.--
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Rules made thereunder, a President or a Vice-President 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 President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, shall have a right to speak at or otherwise to take part in the proceeding of the meeting."
Niyam 3 (3) reads as under :--
Notice.--
(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."
Learned Counsel for petitioner further submits that in view of Division Bench decision of this Court in Gayasuddin Khan v. Gram Panchayat (1971 MPLJ 286), notice was bad in law. He has placed reliance to Para 5 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as under :--
"5. The contention is that the meeting itself which passed the resolution was invalid as it was not convened according to law. Rules have been framed for passing no-confidence motion against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch which is called M.P. Gram Panchayats (No-confidence Motion Against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch) Rules, 1964. The following rules are of importance in this connection:--
"3. Notice.-- (1) Any Panch or Panchas who desires or desire to move a motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch shall give a notice thereof to the Secretary in the Form appended to these rules. Where the Panch or Panchas desires or desire to move the motion of no-confidence against the Sarpanch as well as the Up-Sarpanch, he or they shall give two separate notices. If the notice is given jointly by more than one Panch, the motion may, be moved by any of the Panchas signing the notice.
(2) The Secretary shall, on receiving the notice under Sub-rule (1), sign thereon a certificate stating the date on which and the hour at which the notice has been given to him and shall acknowledge its receipt."
Convening of the meeting.-- The meeting of the Gram Panchayat for the purposes of Section 24 of the Act shall be convened by the Secretary and the notice of such meeting specifying the time and place thereof shall be despatched by the Secretary to every Panch seven clear days before the meeting. A copy of the notice shall be sent to the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat concerned."
In the instant case no notice was given by the Secretary. In fact the annexure to the petition shows that the notice was not served by the Secretary. Not only that, but three members as well as the Sarpanch were also not served with notices for the purpose of this no-confidence motion. Even the petitioner himself has not been served. This position has been admitted in the return. If that is so the meeting can not be said to have been validly convened. In fact we may say that there was no meeting at all. If a person who is not authorised to call a meeting calls one, the meeting is not validly convened even if the members collect. Mere gathering of the persons at the request of an unauthorised person is not a meeting under the rules. There should always be 7 clear days notice of the meeting. That has also not happened. The importance of this provision is that a vote of no-confidence may not be very lightly passed. There should be opportunity of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom a vote of no-confidence has to be moved to convince the members or to satisfy them that the grounds on which the motion is being moved will have no basis. There should be scope for removal of misunderstanding. That is necessary for all democratic institutions."
Contending aforesaid, learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the meeting was called by the Collector, who issued the notice, which ought to have been issued by the Chief Executive Officer. The notice itself was bad and on the basis of which, the meeting convened is also bad, and entire proceedings may be quashed.
To consider the contention of petitioner Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 may be seen, which provides that on receiving the notice under Sub-rule (1) the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice. On being thus satisfied, he shall fix the date, lime and place for the meeting of Janpad Panchayat, which shall not be more than fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Thereafter the notice of such meeting specifying the date, time and place thereof shall be caused to be despatched by him through the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat to every member of the Panchayat concerned, before seven days of the meeting. The aforesaid rule specifically says that the said notice shall be served by ''him'' through Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat. The requirement of law is that said notice shall be prepared under the signature of authority, which shall be served through the Chief Executive Officer. The aforesaid provision does not say that the notice shall be prepared and be served by the Chief Executive Officer, but the authorised officer shall despatch the notice and shall be served through the Chief Executive Officer. In this rule word ''him'' is very important. This specifically indicates to the prescribed authority and not to the Chief Executive Officer. The words of legislation are clear and so simple that no other meaning may be interpreted of this. In the case of Janpad Panchayat the authority empowered is the Collector only and notice can not be issued by Chief Executive Officer. After issuance of notice by the Collector, the notice shall be served by the Chief Executive Officer. The act of both the authorities is specific and notice can not be issued by the Chief Executive Officer. In the circumstances, there is no infirmity in the notice issued by the prescribed authority, in the present case.
So far as the judgment of Gayasuddin Khan (supra) is concerned, the Division Bench considering the Rule 4 of M.P. Gram Panchayats (No-confidence Motion Against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch) Rules, 1964, held that the notice ought to have been issued by the Secretary to every member of Panchayat. For ready reference Rule 4 is quoted below :--
"4. Convening of the meeting.--
The meeting of the Gram Panchayat for the purposes of Section 24 of the Act shall be convened by the Secretary and the notice of such meeting specifying the time and place thereof shall be despatched by the Secretary to every Panch seven clear days before the meeting. A copy of the notice shall be sent to the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat concerned."
The aforesaid Rule specifically provides that the meeting shall be convened by the Secretary and notice of such meeting specifying the time and place thereof shall be despatched by the Secretary to every Panch seven days before the meeting. In the aforesaid case notice of no-confidence motion was not issued by Secretary, but by the District Panchayat Officer. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Division Bench held that the notice was bad in law.
This is not the position in present case. The notice was despatched by the authority through the Chief Executive Officer, who served the notice to every member of the Janpad Panchayat. In these circumstances, the aforesaid notice was properly served by the prescribed authority through the Chief Executive Officer, in which I do not find any jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. This petition has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
