ORDER
S.S. Jha, J.
1. This petition is field challenging the order Annexure P-l passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, whereby the Commissioner entertained the revision against convening a meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence against the President of Janpad Panchayat, Morena. The Meeting was convened by the Prescribed Authority on 8-6-2001.
2. The question involved in this case is whether the Court should interfere with the consideration of motion of no-confidence.
3. Brief facts of the case are that under Section 28 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam'), twenty Panchas of Janpad Panchayat have submitted intention to bring motion of no-confidence against the President of Janpad Panchayat, Morena vide Annexure P-2. An order was passed by the Collector, District Morena on 29-5-2001 being Prescribed Authority that meeting shall be convened to consider motion of no-confidence against the President of Janpad Panchayat on 8-6-2001 at 11.30 a.m. in the meeting hall of Janpad Panchayat, Morena. A notice of the meeting has been sent under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of M.P. Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke Adhyaksh Tatha Upadhyaksh Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Rules'). Under Sub-rule (4) the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Morena was appointed to preside over the meeting.
4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that though Annexure P-3 describes the letter as order, but in fact it is not an order, but has been issued by the Collector in exercise of the powers conferred under the Rules to convene a meeting. Rights of the parties have not been decided. Therefore, it was submitted that no revision lay before the Commissioner under Section 91 of the Adhiniyam.
5. Counsel for petitioners submitted that since no orders have been passed, therefore, order convening the meeting is not amenable to revision. Even otherwise, if an order is passed, the order shall be appealable and cannot be examined in a revision.
6. Counsel for petitioners submitted that revision against the action for considering motion of non-confidence before the Commissioner is not maintainable and the order staying the meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence is without jurisdiction and the order Annexure P-l deserves to be quashed.
7. Shri R.D. Jain, Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 submitted that this petition is premature as the revision is pending before the Commissioner. Petitioners should raise the objection before the Revisional Court and should come before this Court after decision of the revision. Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that since some of the Panchas have been kidnapped and respondent No. 1 is not having access to them, therefore, consideration of motion of no-confidence has rightly been stayed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division.
8. Counsel for respondent No, 1 then raised a preliminary objection as to the mode of filing this petition. He submitted that under the High Court Rules, petition should be signed by all the petitioners. Petition has been signed by one petitioner and the counsel for petitioners.
9. Counsel for respondent No. 1 invited attention to High Court Rules and Orders, wherein specific provisions for filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are made. Counsel for respondent No. 1 invited attention to Rule 1 of Chapter II Section III of the M.P. High Court Rules wherein it is provided that petition for a direction or order or writ including writs shall conform to the provisions of Order II Rules t, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Code and Rules 2 and 3 of Chapter IV of the Rules of the High Court in the matter of affidavits to be filed in support thereof. He submitted that the amendment is for the purpose of affidavit and under the Code of Civil Procedure petition should be signed by all the parties. He invited attention to Order IV Rule 14, CPC and submitted that every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader, if any, and where a party pleading is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorised by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf. In the present case, the petition has been singed by the counsel for petitioner and one of the petitioners. Rules 2 and 3 of Chapter IV of Section I of the M.P. High Court Rules provides for presentation of appeals and applications. It provides that applications shall be filed before the High Court. Sub-rule (iii) of Rule 2 provides that it shall be signed and dated by the petitioner or by his counsel. Therefore, on bare perusal of Sub-rule (2) of Chapter IV of Section of the M.P. High Court Rules and Orders, it is apparent that the petition can be signed by the party or his counsel.
10. Counsel for petitioners submitted that after the amendment in Rule (1) of Chapter II Section III in M.P. High Court Rules & Orders, it is clear that the rule has been drastically amended and the provision of Chapter IV is not applicable to writ petitions under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. Counsel for respondent No. 1 then submitted that the petition as filed should be dismissed.
12. Counsel for petitioners referred to the judgment in the case of Kalu Ram v. Jaggannath (AIR 1963 MP 151) and submitted that when signature and verification is defective, the defect is formal, the Court has power to allow the plaintiff to remedy the defect at any stage. It is also held that omission by the plaintiff to sign the plaint is merely a formal error and not a serious defect which went to the root of the matter.
13. Counsel for petitioners then invited attention to the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shrimati Sudha Gupta v. State of M.P. [1999 (1) JLJ 14]. He invited attention to Para 27 of the judgment and submitted that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 2, CPC are applicable to the proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. He further invited attention to Para 23 of the judgment wherein it is held that the salutary principles enshrined in the Civil Procedure Code governing the trial of civil suits may be applied to the proceedings excepting the cases of habeas corpus petitions, indicated hereinabove, the principles underlying the provisions contained in Order 6 Rule 2, CPC can be safely applied to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. Counsel for respondent No. 1 therefore, submitted that since it is held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable, pleadings must be signed by all the parties.
15. Attention was invited to another Full Bench decision in the case of Sindh Transport Co. v. State Transport Authority (1990 JLJ 11) and counsel for petitioner submitted that when a statute prescribes a particular mode or manner in which a thing has to be done, it must be done in that manner or not at all as other modes are excluded by implication. He submitted that the statutory power can be exercised only in the manner prescribed or not at all. Counsel for respondent submitted thalwhen the procedure has been provided for filing a petition it cannot be ignored and all parties to the petition must sign the petition. For this purpose, counsel for respondent referred to the judgment in the case of Basantilal v. Rameshwar Prasad (1993 JLJ 777) and submitted that if statute prescribes particular mode or manner to do a thing, other modes are excluded by implication.
16. Counsel for respondent then submitted that the Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the revision. He invited attention to the provisions of M.P. Panchayat Raj (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 and submitted that under Rule 5 Commissioner is empowered to satisfy himself as to legality or propriety of any order passed by or as to the regularity of the proceeding. Counsel for respondent submitted that the act and the manner in which the application for motion of no-confidence was considered is not the intention of Rule 3 of the Rules.
17. Rule 3 of the Rules is reproduced below :--
'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 Vicc-President of Janpad 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:
Provided further that where the elected members desire to move the motion of no-confidence against both the Sarpanch and Up-Sar-panch, President or 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 dispatched 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.'
Thus Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 provides that 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) of the Adhiniyam as the case may be, and on being satisfied, he shall fix date, time and place for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat.
18. Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that on bare perusal of the Annexure P-2 it is apparent that there was no application of mind by the Collector. He has recorded an endorsement that the notice is received on 28-5-2001 and directed the Chief Executive Officer to verify the contents of the notice. Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that under Rule 3 it is the duty of the prescribed authority to mention time and date of receiving the application and the authority shall satisfy himself and thereafter, after application of mind, meeting shall be convened. Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitting there is nothing on record that the prescribed authority has applied its mind in convening the meeting. On the contrary, he forwarded the papers to the Chief Executive Officer, who forwarded it to one Rathore. Counsel submitted that the provisions are not being followed properly. He submitted that no meeting could be convened as there is gross irregularity on the part of prescribed authority in delegating the powers to the authority which is not competent to take action on the notice of no-confidence under the Rules. He, therefore, submitted that the direction to appoint authority will be a proceeding and the Commissioner has jurisdiction to entertain the revision. He placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of P.L. Kantha Rao v. State of A.R (AIR 1995 SC 809) wherein it is held that the word 'proceeding' engrafted must be understood in a broader perspective. In this case, it is held that the word 'proceeding' would depend upon the scope of the enactment wherein the expression is used with reference to a particular context where it occurs. It may mean a course of action for enforcing a legal right. In the journey of litigation, there are several stages, one of which is the realisation of the judicial adjudication which attained finality. In this case it is further held that the word, 'proceeding' though has not been defined under Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, it is a comprehensive term.
19. Reference was made to the judgment in the case of Lokendra Singh Bhadoriya v. Board of Revenue (1996 RN 393) wherein the word 'proceeding' was considered in context to Section 80 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, wherein the word 'proceeding' is defined in the shorter Oxford Dictionary as 'doing a legal action or process, any act done by the authority of a Court of law'. The word 'proceeding' ordinarily relates to forms of law, to the modes in which judicial transactions are conducted. It was held that the term 'proceeding' is very comprehensive term and generally speaking means a prescribed course of action for enforcing a legal right and hence it necessarily embraces the requisite steps by which a judicial action is invoked.
20. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 then submitted that any action taken dehors to the Rules then the meeting so convened shall rendered ineffective, relying upon the judgment in the case of Tejlal v. Nandkishore (1966 MPLJ 1014).
21. On the other hand, counsel for petitioner submitted that from bare perusal of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 satisfaction of the authority should be under Section 28 (3) of the Adhiniyam. Section 28 (3) of the Adhiniyam is reproduced below:--
'No-confidence motion shall not lie against the President or Vice-President within a period of--
(i) one year from the date on which the President or Vice-Presi-dent enter their respective office;
(ii) six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the President or Vice-President, as the case may be, expires;
(iii) one year from the date on which previous motion of no-confidence was rejected.'
Counsel for petitioner submitted that the authority should satisfy regarding the maintainability of motion of no-confidence in the light of provisions in sub-section (3) of Section 28; unless conditions enumerated in Section 28 (3) of the Adhiniyam arc fulfilled, no motion of no-confidence can be brought against the person concerned. He submitted that the satisfaction should be under Section 28 (3) of the Adhiniyam and on no other ground.
22. Counsel for respondent No. 1 then placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Kushma Sharma v. State of M.P. [1998 (I) MPWN SN 92] wherein it is held that the application for moving no-confidence motion against Sarpanch shall not be interfered in writ jurisdiction. If resolution is passed, the petitioners have remedy under the Adhiniyam. He therefore, submitted that no interference is warranted with the intention to bring motion of no-confidence, unless motion is considered by the concerned Panchayat.
23. Counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Sheokumar v. Municipal Committee, Rajnandgaon (1964 JLJ 249), wherein it is held that for convening meeting to consider motion of no-confidence provisions of the Adhiniyam should be followed strictly. Reliance was placed upon the judgment in the case of Jung Bahadur Singh Yadav v. State of M.P. [2000 (II) MPJR-SN 23] wherein it is held that when statutory powers are conferred upon the authority, only such statutory authority can decide the matter.
24. In the case of ShankarLal v. State ofM.P. (1975 JLJ 386) Gram Panchayats (No-confidence motion against Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch) Rules, 1964, were considered and provisions of Rule 3 (2) of the aforesaid Rules were held to be directory and not mandatory and for non-compliance of the rules, the resolution cannot be declared to be invalid. In that case, the fact remained that notices were received by the Secretary on 27-4-1973. It was pointed out that the Secretary on receiving the notice under the aforesaid Rules, did not sign the notice specifying the date on which and the hour at which he had been given the notice. The Court held that non-compliance of the aforesaid rules will not vitiate passing of the no-confidence motion; the rule is directory in nature and not mandatory. Counsel for petitioners submitted that aforesaid rules are analogous to the Rules of no-confidence.
25. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Collector, Shivputi and Anr (1971 JLJ 161) it is held that failure of the Secretary to record the minutes of the meeting, would not affect the validity of the proceedings at the meeting.
25-A. Considering the rules pertaining to presentation of appeals and applications in Chapter IV of Section I of M.P. High Court Manual, any petition or appeal can be signed and dated by the petitioner or his counsel. Similar provision was in Chapter II Section III for filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rule 1 (a) is clear wherein it is prescribed that writs shall be filed in the form prescribed under this rule and shall as far as possible, conform to the provisions of Order 2 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Code and Rules 2 and 3 of Chapter IV of the Rules of the High Court.
25-B. Thus petitions are to be filed under Rules 2 and 3 of Chapter IV of the High Court Rules and in the matter of affidavits as per the rules framed in Chapter III of Section I.
25-C. In the circumstances, the petition as filed is proper and it cannot be rejected on this technical ground.
26. Having considered the rival contentions, the question which requires to he determined is whether Annexure P-3 is an order or proceeding. Rule 3 of the Rules provides that elected members of the Janpad Panchayat desiring to move motion of no-confidence against the President of Janpad Panchayat shall give notice thereof to the prescribed authority in the form apprehended to the Rules. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 provides that such notice shall be given to the prescribed authority. It further provides that such notice shall be signed by not less 1/3rd of the total number of elected members of the concerned Panchayat. It is further provided that 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. Under Sub-rule (3), on receiving the notice under Sub-rule (1) the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself about the admis-sibility of the notice with respect to Sections 21 (3), 28 (3) and 35 (3), as the case may be, and on being satisfied he shall fix date, time and place for the meeting of the Janpad Panchayat, which shall not be more than fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice.
27. Contention of counsel for respondent No. 1 is that in the present case, procedure has not been followed by the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority has not recorded the hour at which the application was received, he has simply mentioned the date on which the application was received, and has forwarded the application to the Chief Executive Officer. Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that it was not proper for the prescribed authority to mark the application to the Chief Executive Officer. The intention of the Legislature is that the prescribed authority should satisfy himself as to admissibility of notice of no-confidence under Section 28 (3) of the Adhiniyam. The best person who can give intimation regarding the facts mentioned in Section 28 (3) of the Adhiniyam will be the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Janpad Panchayat. The prescribed authority is required to satisfy himself whether such motion of no-confidence will lie against the President and it is not moved within a period of one year from the date on which the President or Vice-President enters their respective office; six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the President or Vice-President, as the case may be expires; and one year from the date on which previous motion of no-confidence was rejected. For getting the factual information, the application was marked to the Chief Executive Officer and after satisfying himself, the prescribed authority has fixed the date for convening meeting for non-confidence motion vide order dated 29-5-2001, for 8-6-2001. Thus the meeting is convened within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice and appointment of Presiding Officer is under Rule 4 of the Rules.
28. Thus, the document Annexure P-3 is neither a proceeding nor an order. In fact, it is a performance of statutory duty in pursuance of receipt of notice of no-confidence. The prescribed authority has performed its duty. Therefore, this document Annexure P-3 cannot be termed as a proceeding or an order.
29. Mere non-mentioning the hour at which the application was received will not be fatal. Therefore, contention of respondent No. 1 that this petition is premature is rejected and it is held that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain revision against performance of duty by the prescribed authority by fixing a date, time and place for convening the meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence against the President of Janpad Panchayat, and appointing officer to preside over the meeting. As such, the revision before the Commissioner is incompetent. Since the revision is not maintainable, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to stay the proceedings. Since the proceeding have been stayed, meeting for no-confidence could not be convened. Order of the Commissioner staying the proceedings Annexure P-l is without jurisdiction and is quashed.
30. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the prescribed authority, i.e, the Collector, Morena shall fix fresh date to consider the motion of no-confidence against respondent No. 1, which shall be not later than fifteen day from the date of communication of this order.
31. Democratic set up will fail if the person who lost confidence is trying to continue in office without having majority with him.
32. In the result, the order Annexure P-l passed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena is quashed and it is held that no revision is maintainable against the motion of Collector fixing date and time for convening meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence.
33. Petition succeeds and is allowed with costs of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand) upon respondent No. 1. Counsel's fee as per schedule.
34. Writ Petition allowed.