BHAGIRATHI NIMALKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
LAWS(CHH)-2003-7-8
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on July 31,2003

Bhagirathi Nirmalkar Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MOHANLAL TRIPATHI VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE RAI BAREILLY [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR DAYAL MAHARAMAN V. B.N. TRIPATHI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

FAKHRUDDIN,J. - (1.)BY this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Section 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Originally this Act was made by Madhya Pradesh and after reorganisation of the State of Chhattisgarh it has been adopted by this State.
(2.)THE ground for challenge as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said provision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, learned counsel referred to para 5.18 of the petition, whereby it is hypothetically contended that the Sarpanch is elected directly whereas Panchas are elected from the Wards and these Panchas, who have been elected, do not have right to remove the Sarpanch, who has been elected from his own constituency. Section 21 of the aforesaid Act is pertinent, which reads as under :
"21. No confidence motion against Sarpanch and Up Sarpanch -- (1) On a motion of no confidence being passed by the Gram Panchayat by a resolution passed by majority of not less than three fourth of the panchas present and voting and such majority is more than two third of the total number of panchas constituting the gram panchayat for the time being, the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch against whom such motion is passed, shall cease to hold office forthwith. (2) Notwithstanding contained in this Act or the Rules made thereunder, a Sarpanch or an Up-Sarpanch 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 Sarpanch or the Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall have a right to speak at, or otherwise to take part in, the proceeding of the meeting. (3) No confidence motion shall not lie against, the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch within a period of -- (i) one year from the date on which the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch enter their respective office; (ii) six months preceding the date on which the term of office of the Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, as the case may be, expires; (iii) one year from the date on which previous motion of no confidence was rejected."

(3.)THERE is no doubt and it is true that Sarpanch is elected directly by the voters of the Gram Panchayat but the provision of removal by no confidence by the elected Panchas cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of M.P. High Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Bhunjwa v. State of M.P. reported in . It is held therein as under :
"There is no arbitrariness violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This is within the domain of the State legislature to provide the method of the election of Sarpanch and their removal. Simply because an indirect method has been provided by the State legislature, it cannot be said that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is for the State legislature to consider whether the Sarpanch who is directly elected should be removed by the elected panchas i.e. by indirect method. It cannot be said that this method is bad or illegal as all the panchas are also elected by the gram sabha only and they are supposed to represent the will of the voters of the gram sabha."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.