IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6001 of 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
SALIMBHAI AYUBBHAI SIDAT
Versus
SARPANCH
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
1. Special Civil Application No. 6001 of 2003
MR SV PARMAR for Petitioner No. 1
MS PREETI S PARMAR for Petitioner No. 1
.......... for Respondent No. 1-2
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date of Order: 03/05/2003
ORAL ORDER
1.The present petition is preferred by the
petitioner for an appropriate writ of a prohibitory in
nature to desist the respondents to hold meeting on
5.5.2003 for considering the motion of no confidence
against the petitioner and the petitioner has also prayed
for quashing of the notice Annexure `B’ and the letter
Annexure `C’.
2.Heard Mr.S.V.Parmar, learned advocate for the
petitioner. The contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner is that no reasons are mentioned and there is
absolutely no material together with the proposal for
motion of no confidence. Mr.Parmar also submitted that
the copy of motion should bear the original signatures of
the members concerned whereas the petitioner is supplied
only xerox and, therefore, the requirement of the law is
not satisfied. Mr.Parmar also submitted that, as per the
rules, the power to issue agenda and hold the meeting is
with the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and Sarpanch
could not have issued the agenda for holding of the
meeting.
3.Having considered the above, I am of the view
that, in the matter of motion of no confidence, the
confidence is of the paramount consideration and the
other aspects regarding procedure are in my view the
method developed for the purpose of considering the same
and even if there is some irregularity in the
proceedings, the motion would not lapse unless it is not
moved by requisite number of members of Gram Panchayat.
Apart from the above the contention raised by Mr.Parmar,
I do not find any substance in the contention raised by
Mr.Parmar that the material is required to be produced
together with the motion. There is no such expressed
requirement under the law. As regards the original
signature of the members, the said contention is also
ill-founded because the original motion would be
submitted to the Sarpanch and the xerox which is produced
goes to show that it’s original contains the original
signatures of the members concerned. There is no
expressed requirement under the law that the original
motion contending signature of the members of the Gram
Panchayat must be presented and produced before the
Up-Sarpanch against whom the motion is proposed to be
considered.
4.The contention regarding power of the Secretary
to issue agenda is ex-facie without any substance
inasmuch as Section 56 sub-sec.(5) clause (b) provides
that if the Sarpanch fails to call for such meeting, the
Secretary of the Panchayat has to make the report. Hence
afresh when the statute provides express power to the
Sarpanch to call the meeting, the provision of the rule
cannot have over riding effect.
5.Mr.Parmar also made an attempt to contend that
the action of moving no confidence motion is with
malafide purpose since the petitioner wants to examine
certain documents in which the petitioner has
apprehension that some illegalities are committed. As
such, the said ground also cannot be accepted, because as
observed earlier, in a matter of motion of no confidence,
the confidence of the members of the Gram Panchayat
through whom the Up-Sarpanch is elected would be of a
paramount consideration. It may be that the petitioner
may be feeling that he has worked in a very good manner
and there is no cause for moving the motion against him
but the judicial scrutiny of such individual grievances
are not to be considered while testing the legality and
validity of the motion of no confidence. As observed
earlier, the requirement is the confidence upon the
office bearer and once the confidence is lost, the
members are justified to move the motion of no
confidence.
6.Mr.Parmar also made an attempt to submit it is a
question of removal somebody of the office and,
therefore, strict compliance is required. As observed
earlier, there is no express mandatory provision which is
not complied with for the purpose of considering the
motion of no confidence. Moreover, as per the law laid
down by this Court in the case of Narmadaben V.Parmar Vs.
Taluka Development Officer, Kheralu reported in 1998(1)
GLR 225 the electorates through whom the office bearer is
elected, have inherent right to recall their own office
bearer. Hence, in my view there is no substance in this
petition and hence the petition is dismissed.
(Jayant Patel, J.)
syed/