W.A.No.1444/2012 02.01.2013 Shri Subodh Kathar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt.
Advocate for the respondents.
Heard on the question of admission.
This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the M.P.Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed challenging the order dated 3.12.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.20101/2012, by which the learned Single Judge has refused to entertain the writ petition at the admission stage.
It is contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that one of the member of the Gram Panchayat was prevented to take part in the proceedings of the meeting held for consideration of no confidence motion moved against the appellant/petitioner, who was an elected Sarpanch.
Only 20 elected members out of 21 were present and as 15 Panchas have voted against the appellant/petitioner, the motion of no confidence is said to be passed against the appellant.
It is contended that these facts were stated by the appellant/petitioner in the application moved before the Collector, but the same was rejected and, therefore, the writ petition was required to be filed.
Since these aspects have not been considered by the learned Single Judge, the writ petition was improperly dismissed at the admission stage.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and considering the facts as have come on record, we do not find any apparent error of law in passing the order, impugned in this appeal by the learned Single Judge.
As per the provisions of M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short).the motion of no confidence was rightly passed against the appellant/petitioner as the number of members present have voted against the appellant/petitioner and in favour of motion of no confidence.
Even otherwise, there was no material available either before the competent authority or before the learned Single Judge to hold that the notice of such a proceeding was never issued or served on said Lalman Chouhan.
On the other hand, it is found that the notice of no confidence itself was signed by said Lalman Chouhan.
His absence on the date of meeting would not have made any change in the result of passing the no confidence motion against the appellant/petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The writ appeal being devoid of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
(S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge.
A.Praj.