DINESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order disposes of W.P. No. 8045/07 as well as W.P. No. 8066/07. Reference to annexures is being taken from W.P. No. 8045/07 except otherwise mentioned.

(2.) Short facts leading to the petitions are that the petitioner was elected as President Zila Panchayat, Shahdol in January, 2005. On 9 -5 -2007 a notice to move no confidence against the petitioner was submitted to respondent No. 2, who being the prescribed authority of Zila Panchayat passed an order on the same date as contained in Annexure P/2 fixing thereby the meeting for motion of no confidence on 21 -5 -2007. It is stated in the petition that the prescribed authority did not record his satisfaction about the admissibility of notice and further did not appoint the Presiding Officer as required under section 35(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to the Act, 1993 for convenience) and Rule 3(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch Tatha Up -Sarpanch, Janpad Panchayat Tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President Tatha Vice -President Ke Virudh Avishwas Prastav) Niyam, 1994. It is further averred that the members of the Zila Panchayat were kidnapped and were confined at some unknown place by Rajkumar Sarawagi, son of local BJP MLA Shri Chotelal Sarawagi. He immediately made representation to the Collector, Shahdol contained in Annexures P/2 and P/3 respectively. Petitioner was not provided with grounds of no confidence motion levelled against him in the notice. He made an application dated 24 -5 -2007 with a prayer for furnishing certain documents including the notice of no confidence motion vide Annexure P/5 but the same were not furnished to him on the ground that the same may be obtained from the record of office of the Commissioner. It is categorically averred that the members of Zila Panchayat were brought in the meeting hall by Rajkumar Sarawagi, in the, presence of his father local MLA Shri Chotelal Sarawagi. Distt. President of ruling party Shri Anupam Awasthy was also present at the time of voting. An objection about such presence was raised by the petitioner which remained unnoticed and was not recorded in the proceedings. The proceedings of no confidence were drawn without making petitioner aware of the grounds against him and, consequently, the petitioner was unable to speak and clarify his stand. Voting was made under the threat and influence of local MLA and BJP President. One Munnibai Bega stated to be signatory of motion of no confidence, refused to put her thumb impression on the proceedings. News item in the local newspaper about the presence of local MLA and District President of ruling party are Annexures P/8 to P/10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner submitted W.P. No. 6946/2007 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 7 -6 -2007 with a liberty to the petitioner to file a reference under section 35(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the reference petition was submitted as contained in Annexure P/12 which goes to show that various factual as well as legal objections have been raised in the reference. An application for stay was also submitted which was considered by the Hon'ble State Minister for Panchayat and Rural Development Madhya Pradesh on 8 -6 -2007 as revealed in Annexure P/14. Hon'ble Minister observed that stay order was being passed because balance of convenience was in favour of petitioner. Accordingly, the meeting convened for election of New President of Zila Panchayat, Shahdol on 9 -2 -2007 was stayed and the case was fixed for further hearing on 16 -7 -2007. Respondents No. 7 and 8 were not parties to the reference case, so, they submitted an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code for their impleadment along with an application for urgent hearing as contained in Annexures P/16 and P/15 respectively. It will not be out of place to mention here that a detailed order of stay passed on 8 -6 -2007 is placed on record by private respondents with their reply at Page 28 and 29. Similarly, private respondents along with Annexures P/15 and P/16 submitted objections for dismissal of reference as well as rejection of stay order dated 8 -6 -2007. These objections are placed on record as Annexure R/l by respondent Nos. 7 and 8 with their reply. Respondent No. 2 (Hon'ble Minister) preponed the hearing to 26 -6 -2007 and after hearing the arguments vacated the stay order dismissing simultaneously reference vide Annexure P/17. It is specifically averred that respondents No. 7 and 8 were not party to the reference proceedings and they were not even impleaded in the reference case by respondent No. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel of petitioner Shri Shukla that:

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of available record and the legal position governing the situation.