Jagdish Bansod vs State of M.P. and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the prescribed authority, Sub-Divisional Officer, Balaghat has held that the motion of no-confidence moved against the President of Janpad Panchayat, Waraseoni on 05.12.2012 has failed.

It is submitted by the petitioner, who is one of the ward members of the Jandpad Panchayat, Waraseoni that he had moved a motion of no-confidence against the president alongwith 18 other members of Jandpad Panchayat, Waraseoni, pursuant to which the Collector, Balaghat had appointed the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balaghat to preside over the meeting which was held on 05.12.2012. It is stated that in the said meeting out of the total 22 elected members of Jandpad Panchayat, Waraseoni, 16 voted in favour of the motion, while 6 voted against the same but the Presiding Officer, by wrongly interpreting the provisions of Section 28(1) of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, has held that the motion has failed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in accordance with the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Adhiniyam, the motion of no-confidence has to be passed by a majority of 2/3rd of the total number of elected members and not 3/4th as held by the Presiding Officer and therefore, the impugned order of the presiding officer be set aside.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that Section 28(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, provides that a motion of no-confidence has to be passed by a majority of not less than 3/4th of the elected members present and voting and that such majority is more than 2/3rd of the total number of the elected members constituting the Janpad Panchayat for the time being. In the instant case, it is undisputed that all the 22 members of the Jandpad Panchayat, Waraseoni were present in the meeting convened for considering the motion of no-confidence held on 05.12.2012 and that 3/4th of 22 comes to 16.5 whereas only 16 elected members have voted in favour of the motion.

It is also clear from a perusal of Section 28 of the Adhiniyam that the resolution in favour of no-confidence motion against the president has to be passed by a majority of "not less than" 3/4th of the elected members present and voting and therefore, it is clear that only 16 members have voted in favour of the no confidence motion which is less than 3/4th of the elected members who were present and voting, i.e. less than the requisite number of 16.5, which on rounding comes to 17 and, therefore, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned decision of the presiding officer holding that the motion of no-confidence has failed. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as there is no violation or misinterpretation of the provisions of Section of 28(1) of the Adhiniyam in the impugned decision, I find no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, which is accordingly dismissed.