Section Document
Document
( P. GRM! PANCH. KE SARPANCH ... PRASTAV) NIYAM, 1994 (PR)197 the sub- Section (3)of the Section 95 af the said Act, namely:- ; 1. Short title.-These rules may be called the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Regulation of Relations tetween Panchayats and Panchayat and other local authorities) Rules, ]994. - 2. Definitions.-In these rules, unless the context otherwise re- quires,- (a)"Act"means the Madhya PradEsh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 . (No.1 of 1994); . (b)"Section" means the se<;tion:>fthe Act. ;3. Settlement of Di~putes.-(l) If any dispute arises between- (i) the Panchayats, or (ii) the Panchayat and the local authorities of any matter in which they are jointly interested such matter shall be resolved by reconciling the views of each other or by mutual consult.ation .with due regard to their reI=resentative character in democratic set-up. . (2)If they fail to resolve their dispute the manner provided in sub-Rule (1),the same may be referred by them~ointly or by any party to the dispute to the State Government for decision and such decision may include an order as to the costs of any enquiry ordered by the State Government, and shall be final: .....Provided. thal. the:.PanchayaL and .._the.)9-Gal."",auth9ntY:-;1Jlay..:.:_agr~~.~J!l ~-:::;:..:: writ"ingthat such dispute shall, instead of being referred to the State Government for. decision, be referred for .an arbitrator or arbitrators appointed under the Arbitration i.ct, 1940 or to a Civil Court under Section 90 of the Code of Civil Proced..ue, 1890. 4. Repeal.-The previous rules if any on the subject shall stand repealed on the date of final publicalion of these rules in the "Madhya Pradesh Gazette". THE MADHYA PRADESH PANCHAYAT (GRAM PANCHAYAT KE SARPANCH TATHA UP- SARP ANCH, JANAPAD PANCHAYAT TATHA ZILA PANCHAYAT KE PRESIDENT TATHA VICE-PRESIDENT KE VIRUDH AVISHW AS PRASTAV) N YAM, 1994 CONTENFJ;S 1. Short title. 2. Definitions. 3. Notice. 4. Appointment of Presiding OEicer. 5. Conduct of meeting. :;;~L 6. Minutes of the Proceedings. . '....; 7. Safe keeping of Records. .'j( .. 8. Decision to be communicated to the Prescribed Authority and the Collector. 9. Repeal. " , :1 (PR)198 GRAM PANCH. KE SARPANCH ... PRASTAV) NIYAM, 1994 R. 1 [Notification No. B-1-4-95-P-2-XXII, dated 9th January, 1995, published. in M.P. Rajpatra, Extraordinary, dated 10thJanuary, 1995, p. 24(3)-(5),as amended by Noifn. date(i 23-12-1995, published in M.P. Rqjpatra, Ext., dated 26-12-1995, p. 1208].-In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-Section (1) of Section 95 read with sub-Section (2) of Section 21, sub-Section (2) of"Section 28. and sub-Section (2) of Section 35 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat RajAdhiniyarn, 1993 (No.1 of 1994), the State Government hereby makes the follOwingrules, the same having been previously published as required by the sub- Section (3)of the Section 95 of the said Act, namely:- 1. Short title.-These rules may be called the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Gram Panchayat Ke Sarpanch tatha Up-Sarpanch, Janapad Panchayat tatha Zila Panchayat Ke President tatha Vice-President Ke Virudh Avishwas prastav) Niyam, 1994. COMMENTARY In the meeting called for consideration of no-confidence motion against Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, presence of panchas' names mentioned and the proceedings were signed by all the panchas including the Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch. Collector wrongly set aside the no-con- fidence motion passed on the ground that presence was not mentioned. Sukhnandan Patel v. State of M.P., 2003 (1) MPLJ 220=2003 (2) JLJ 74. -. - -_.---. -_. -_. ~:~-~.~:..:- :-'.:....- -- - ..: .-. -.- _.- - - ... - -- - - - =-~.- _.. --- -- 4 .-- .•~ ••• __ ..:.. ..• _ •.• __ ••. : ~.- . __ , 2. Definitions ...In these rules, unl'ess the cohtext otherWise re- qUires,- (a) "Act"means the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (No.1 of 1994); (b) "Chief Executive Officer"means the Chief Executive Officer of J anapad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat; (c) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat; -(d) '''Section'' means the Section of the AcL--------- -- ---- -- _ 3. Notice.- 1[(1) Elected members of Gram Panchayat, Janapad "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 Vice-President ofJanapad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, shall give a notice thereof to the prescribed authority in the form appended to thtse rules: ,: Provided th.at such notice shall be signed by not less than one third of the total number of elected members of the concerned Panhayat : Provided further that where the elected' members desire to move the motion of no -confidence against both the Sarpanch and -Up-SarpancI1, _ President and Vice-President ofJanapad Parichayat 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 s~gnthereon a certificate stating the date on which hour and at which the notice has been given to him and shall acknowledge its receipt. 1" Subs. by Notification dated 23-12-1995 [26-12-1995J. R. 3 GRAM PANCH. KE SARPANCH ... PRASTAV) NIYAM, 1994 (PR)199 (3) On receiving the notice under sub-Rule (1) the prescribed authority shall satisfy himself about the admissibility of the notice with reference to Section.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, Janapad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be. wpich 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 despatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or Chief Executive Officer of the Janapad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting. COMMENTARY SYNOPSIS 1. Issue of no-confidence mot 0 notice. 2. Non-compliance of the provi5ionof notice, whether caused serious prejudice to any part). 3. Revision. 4. Invalid meeting. 5. Change of venue of meeting ~ordiscussing no-confidence motion. 6. Delayed meeeting-Effect. 7. Requir~ment.QfcOl}veningl}leetiI}g.. __ .. -- _. --_. -8: .-C~lus-ea-io-De aespatchecroffiiin:Meaiirng of.-_':-':-=-,---:.:::-.:=:~.---:::=-~..:..:.:; .:~...:-.:-:~~:..:..;-...:-~-.-.-:. -:::.:-.:: 9. Despatch of notice. -. 10. Adjournment of meeting eall=d {orcc)n-s)cienng-motlon-ofno-':- can': -- -- ----- -- fidence against Sarpanch. . 11. Prescribed Authority fixing cate of meeting beyond 15 days- Mo- tion of no-confidence passed cannot be held invalid. 1.Issue of no-confidence motion notice.- The issue of notice of meeting of a no confidence motion Dust be issued by the Collector, who is the prescribed authority and not oy the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat: Buf-sucn--a hotite canhe-served-by-him:-Mohanalal----- Marco v. Additional Commissioner, 2004 (4) MPLJ 461=2004 (4) MPHT59. 2. Non-compliance of the provision of notice, whether caused serious prejudice to any party.-The provision regarding notice is mandatory. If it is not complied, it is still open to the Collector to find out whether it has called serious prejudice to any of the parties or whether it has resulted in failure (of justice. Bhulin Dewangan v. State of M.P., 2001 (2) MPLJ 372=2000 (2) JLJ,353 (F.B.). . , . 3. Revision.- Revision against :lotice convening meeting to consider no:~.onfiden.c~ mqtion and _ap'pQjqting pr~sjdi~t 0fl.ice~. Not~ce_ being n(3,ither an order, nor a proceeding but only a performance of statutory . d~ty, revision does not lie. Commissioner has no jurisdiction to stay the proc~edings. Ramprasad Mavai v. Hari Singh Tomar, 2002 (2) JLJ 53F20Ql (4) MPHT 364. r 4. Invalid meetirig.-[l] Where a meeting is called for discussing a rio-confidence motion, it can be invalidated if notiCe to call such a meeting (PR)200 GRAM PANCH. KE SARPANCH ... PRASTAV) NIYAM, 1994 R. 3 I is not dispatched before seven clear days of the date fixed for meeting. Jugraj Singh Markam v. Dhannalal, 2003 (4) MPLJ 378=2004 (1) JLJ 340. (2) See also: Ramesh Chandra Vanshkar v. State of M.P., 2008 (4) MPLJ 373 = 2008(5) MPHT 340 = 2008(2) MPWN 40. 5. Cha,nge of Venue of meeting for discussing no-confidence . motion.-Where venue of a meeting. to .discuss no-.confidence is to be changed, the same should be done by the prescribed authority and s'uch change should be informed to the Sarpanch. If it is not, done so, the meeting would be invalid. Channulal v.Additional Commissioner, 2004 (1) MPLJ 250. 6. Delayed meeting-Effect.-Meeting to discuss no-confidence mo- tion against Sarpanch not convened within 15 days from the date of notice. Petitioner participated in the meeting without raising any objec- tion and motion was carried out with required majority. Held no prejudice caused to the petitioner because ofdelay in calling the meeting. Nanchibai v. State of M.P., 2005 '(1) MPLJ'200. 7. Requirement of convening meeting.-[I] Under Rule 3(3) con- vening of meeting within 15 days is must; it is mandatory and jfJhe .. ,__ meeting ~ hiGh is-convened w-ithin~15 days could-ri'-otproceed:b~calise-or- ...-... _ the reasons beyond control of the prescribed authority, it can be ad- journej and the bar of Rule 3(3) will not c'omein the way. The expression . 'snP~.. - lonvened within 15 days' has to be interpreted as mandatory and Jt '_~d '.J.1.otbe construed as directory. 1996 MPLJ 409 to the extent it holds that meeting cannot be adjourned OVERRULED. Mullu Bai v. State of M.P., 1998 (2) MPLJ 661 (DB). [I-A] See also: Seva Yadav v.,State of M.P., 2008 (2) MPLJ 172 = 2008(2) JLJ 9 = 2008(3) MPlIT 407= AIR 2008 (NOC) 1389 (MP)[DB]' _ . - - - -- - ~- - -- -- -.. - .,~.. - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - --- [2] It is necessary for passing of a no-confidence motion that notice of meeting should be despatched before 7 clear days. Where no such notice was despatched, motion passed in such meeting shall not be valid. Shrinarayan Tiwari v. State of M.P., 1998 (1) JLJ 124. [3]Where the petitioner participated in the meeting without raising any objection as to sufficiency of notice, he is not entitled to raise objection after the motion is passed ..Mah~sh Prasad v. State of M.P., 1997 (2) JLJ 397'1: _. , . [4] The requirement of law of seven clear days is not for delivery of notice but it is for despatch of notice. Mahesh ,Prasad v. State of M.P., 1997 (2) JLJ 397. - . 8~ Expression "caused to be .despatched by him" -Meaning. of.-The requirement of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 3 is that whenever a notice is received by the prescribed authority desiring to move a motion of no-confidence against Sarpanch or'Up.Barpanch of a Gram Panchayat or President or Vice-President of Janpad or Zila Panchayat, as the case may be, he shall satisfy himself about ~headmissibility ofthe notice with reference to Section 21 3 . , , , ,- j R. 3 GRA¥ PANCH. KE SARPArvCH ... PRASTAV) NIYAM, 1994 (PR)201 28(3) oftlte Act in case of Janpad Panchayat and under Section 35(3) of the Act in case ofZila Panchayat~ as the case may be, that the notice is in consonance with the aforesaid provision or not. After having been satisfied that the notice is in consonance with the aforesaid provision, he shall fix the date, time and place of the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, J anpad 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 meeting shall specify the date, time and place of the meeting and the same shall be caused to be despatched by him through the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or through the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayt or Zila Panchayat, as the case lnay be, to every member of the Panchayat concerned seven days before the meeting. The expression "notice shall be caused to be despatched by hiIn" should not necessarily mean that the notice should be signed by him. If the prescribed authority passes the order on being satisfied that the notice is in order then, he shall fix the date, time and place for convening the meeting. Compliance of the above order is nothing but a clerical job. What is relevant is that an order has to be passed by the prescribed authority for issue ofnotice of meeting. Somvati Soni v. Gram Panchayat, Padwar, 2000 (1) MPLJ 173. [2] Meaning of the expression 'such'.-The lneaning of the expres- - sion;--~such'~appearing:-jn:~sub,:,rule_ J3)-_shall_._be"::that.:the_-:prMcrihed_.:...-_.:.:.~-= authority, apart from specifying the date, time and place of the meeting in the notice, he should also specify that the meeting is convened for the --- particular purpose of motion of no-confidence against . . . . (the person concerned). Samvati Sani v. Gram Panchayat, Padwar, 2000 (1) MPLJ 173. 9. Despatch of notice.- The word 'dispatch' used deliberately and it cannot be read as 'receipt'". Dispatch of notice for service on the members in one of the Inodes prescribed in the rules will be due - -- -compliance of the provision. It cannot be read as-'receipe. Bhulin-Dewan- -.------- gan v. State of M.P., 2001 (2) MPLI 372=2000 (2) JLJ 353 (F.B.). [2] In the matter of meeting for considering motion of no- confidence,- the requirement of law is that the notice shall be despatched_seven days b'~fore the meeting for considering the motion. Proceedings are not affected merely because notice was served by Executive Officer and not by p~on. No such technicality can be allowed to be raised when the majority has cast vite against the petitioner. Meenabai v. State of M.P., 1999 (2) MPLJ 97. - ',i [3]See also comments under S.21. Bhulih Dewangan v. State of M.P., 2000 (4) MPHT 69=2000 (2) JLJ 253 (FB). " _:'"- - .- .. =" :"_ [4] Rule 3(3) contemplates despatch of the notice of meeting specify- ing the date, time and place thereof by the prescribed authority tp.r-ough the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, to every member 7 days before the meeting. Therefore, requirement of law is for despatch of notice and not service on the members. Shardabai v. State af M.P., 1997 (2) MPLJ 291. , I . , II ~. I , III , ,I " , ! i 1 I . ! (PR)202 GRAM PANCH. KE SARPANCH ... PRASTAV) NIYAM, 1994 R. 4 10. Adjournment of meeting called for considering motion of no- confidence against Sarpanch.-[I] Once the meeting ofno- con- . fidence is fixed by the Prescribed Authority and an officer has been appointed as a Presiding Officer under Rule 3 it is he who is seized of the matter because he has to preside over the meeting. It is he who is responsible for the conduct ofthe meeting. Once a Presiding Officer has been conferred a power to preside at the meeting he has all the poers as Presiding officer including inherent power to adjourn the meeting. This power can therefore be exercised even earlier for justifiable reasons. 1996 MPLJ 409=1996 JLJ 231 ReI. Lakhansingh v; State of M.P., 1998. (1) MPLJ 682. [I-A] See also: Seva Yadav v. State of M.P., 2008 (2) MPLJ 172 = 2008(2) JLJ 9 = 2008(3) MPHT 407 = AIR 2008 (NOC) 1389 (MP)[DB]. [2] If the Presiding Officer adjourned the meeting in exercise of inherent power vested in him and that date falls beyond 15 days from the date of receipt ofthe notice, it is not in violation of clause (3) of Rule 3: 1997 (2) MPLJ 175, 1996 MPLJ 409=1996 JLJ 231 Disting. Lakhan- singh v. State of M.P., 1998 (1) MPLJ 682. [3] A meeting summoned for expressing no confidence cannot be adjourned for want of-quorum: as::.the,quorum..:has.not beenpr.esccibed.--.:~.:.....:,:,_:.: The presiding officer has to only preside over the meeting but has no power to adjourn it. 1975 JLJ 500 Disting. Hargovind Johari v. Zila Panchayat, Morena, 1996 JLJ 231=1996 MPLJ 409. 11. Prescribed authority fixing date of meeting beyond 15 days-Motion of no confidence passed cannot be held invalid.- Although the date of meeting fixed by the Prescribed Authority was beyond 15 days from the date of receipt of notice still, the motion of no-confidence passed cannot be held invalid for the reason that the will .. of members in relation to the no-'confidencemotion cannotbedefeated.-.- -.--- - on account ofinaction or delayed action ofthe Prescribed Authority. But it was observed that in case the meeting is not held within 15 days, the members have the right to approach the High Court for its compliance and this judgment should not be held to have authorised the Prescribed Authority to fixdate ofmeeting forconsideration ofno-confidencemotion beyond 15 days. Dhumadandhin v. State of M.P., 1997 (2) MPLJ 175. .. . 4. Appointment of Pre~iding Officer.-Tlie Prescribed Authority shall appoint an Officerofthe Government under sub-Section (2)ofSection 21. ~ub-sectiQn (2).of Section 28. or sub-Section (2) of Section 35 to preside over. the meeting of the Gram Panchayat ..J anapad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat. as the case may be. For the purpose of considering the no confidence motion against Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch. a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar. against President or Vice-President of Jan~pad Panchayat l[Officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector] 1 Subs. by Notification dated 23-12-1995 [26-12-1995]. and.against President or Vice-President ofZila Panchayat the Collector or Additional Collector shall be ap,poin::edtopreside over such meeting and the prescribed authority shall inforn::.the Secretary ofthe Gram Panchayat or Chief Executwe Officerof Janapad Panchayat or Zila Panchayat as the case may be. and the Collector of the district about such appointment at least 3 days before the date fixed for-the meeting. COMMENTARY I ( R.5 GRAM PANCH. KE SARPAJ.VCH ... PRASTAV) NIYAM, 1994 (PR)203 In the matter of no confidence motion against 8arpanch of Gram Panchayat, if information is not sent to the. Collector of appointment of presiding officer under Rule 4, it cannot nullify the resolution of non- confidence which is passed by overwhelming majority. Suhhriandan Patel v. State of M.P., 2003 (1) MPLJ 220=2003 (2) JLJ 74. 5. Conduct of meeting.-(l) The Presiding Officer shall record the attendance of the members of the Panchayat present at the meeting. IIx xx] 2[(3) The Presiding Officershall ask any ofthe signatories to the notice to lllove the motion.] . (4) After the motion is moved the mover shall first speak on the motion arid thereafter other members may, ifthey so desire. speak on the motion . .- - (5) Oh th~"~o:iitiu~i6r{6"rtii~:: aebii~~oii~th~~ti~i.--tl~~-'.P~~~f~ti~~goiii~~t::~ shall call the members present in tl-e meeting one by one and shall give them ballot paper duly signed oy-nirif to indicate itsauthentldty:' to 'cast his vote for or against the motion. The member who wants to vote in favour of the motion shall affixthe symbol (-/)and the member who wants to vote against the motion shall affix the symbol 'X'. After the member has recorded his vote, he shall fold tlWballot paper to maintain secrecy and put it in the ballot box kept on the table of the Presiding Officer. (6) After the voting is .over, the Presiding Officer shall take out the ballot papers fr011?-_tl)~ ..1?c~JI.qt~~~_Cl:I?.9 ~9rtoutJh~YQt~~_fQr.9J!c;l_~gq!n.~t the._. ._ . motf6n:If ilie-number of votes in favour of the motion fulfills the require- ment of sub-Section (1) of Section 21, sub-Section (1) of Section 28, or sub-Section (1) of Section 35, as the case may be, the Presiding Officer shall declare that the motion of no confidence is passed. 3[xxx]. COMMENTARY 1.Validity ofresolution-Sarpanch has a right to speak.-A no- confidence motion against a 8arpanch was considered in a meeting called for the purpose and a reso.ution was; passed by the majority of members reql!.ired lQ.do.fi9but the c)ncerneq 8arpanch was not.allowed. _ to speak in that meeting. Held that although the motion was passed by . the requisite" majority still,' the resolution was- invalid because the 8arpanch was not allowed to-speak in that meeting. See comments under 8.21. Nagsai v. State of M.P., AIR 1998 MP 81. 1 Sub-Rule (2) omitted by Notification dated 23-12-1995 [26-12-1995J. 2 Subs. by Notification dated 23-12-1995 [26-12-1995J. 3 Omitted by Notification dated 23-12-1~95 [26-12-1995]. ,.------------------------.~ ~ ; (PR)204 GRAM PANCH. KE SARPANCH ... PRASTAV) NIYAM, 1994 R.6 ," , 2. Mark on ballot paper c'onstrued.-[l] Looking to t9.emarks put onthree ballot papers, the Court came to the conclusionthat these marks were put to vote in favour of the no- confidence motion. Shardabai v. State of M.P., 1997 (2) MPLJ 291. _ [2]Mark on ballot paper's back side treated as no expression of intention.-A voter was required to cast his vote in favour of no confidence motion by putting the symbol of right mark and against it by putting a symbol ofcross mark (x).One disputed ballot paper is liable to reject for the reason that reverse mark ofright symbol was put on the blank back side. Held, it will not convey any intention in specific ofthe voter and the same cannot be treated as a expression ofintention within the meaning ofelection laws. Such ballot paper rightly rejected. Sunita Patel u. Collector, 2008 (3) MPLJ 248 = 2008(1) MPHT 302 = 2008(2) " JLJ 26 = AIR 2008 (NOC) 802 MP. 2-A. Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 are" applicable.-M.P. Nirvachan Niymn, 1995 are quite exhaustive and they would also cover the meet- ings ofno confidencewith regard to various things forwhich no provision has been made in the Avishwas Prastav Niyam, 1994. Illustratively, Chap. X ofNirvachan Niyam provides for counting ofvotes for which no specificprovision made in Avishwas Prastav Niyam and although count- ing is requi.red tQbe_madeeyen5nthe meetingJorno.cC?P.:fi~_~.J?~~.~.$~~(t~~. __~:.~. _"._._ -.Patel u.ColleCtor,200S(3)MPLf24S';;;; 2008U)"MPlIT 302 = 2008(2) JLJ 26 = AI~ ~Q~8JNQ.~2_~0_2 MP. I _ ••. _ •.• _ •• __ •• 3. Sub-Rule (5)-Opportunity to speak.- The facts showing that deliberations were made showed that opportunity was given to speak at the meeting called for consideration of no confidence against the Sar- panch. Provisions of sub-Rule (3) were complied. Sukhnandan Patel v. State of M.P., 2003 (1) MPLJ 220=2003 (2) JLJ 74. 4. Sub-Rule (5)-Votingby women members with assistance of their husbands.-Wl1i~e ~~.~tjI].g.votes in the__pr.oceedings_of.no-:con- .... 1 fidence motIon-meeting, the women members were permitted to take assisstance oftheir husbands by the Presiding Officer and no objection to such course was taken"by anyone, the motion carried out by 3/4th majority ofvotes cannot be set at nought in the absence ofany allegation. to the effect that the votes were casted by the women candidates under the influence oftheir husbands. Kamla Durga Solanki v. State of M.P., 2004 (2) MPLJ 140=2004 (2) MPHT 76 (DB). 5. Conclusiop.- No meeting could be ,held due to difference of opinion between the presiding officer and,:the members present." No conclusion can be drawn that the motion was rejected;-Baboolal Baiga u. State of M.P., 2002 (3) MPLJ 529=:2002(5) MPHT 32. •, ""(2] N0 ~o~fide~cem:9tionwas not validly passed for want ofrequisite strength i.e. 3/4th. Sunita Patel v. Collector, 2008 (3) MPLJ 248 = 2008(1) MPHT 302 = 2008(2) JLJ 26 = AIR 2008 (NOC) 802 MP. 6. Minutes of the Proceedings.-Minutes of the proceedings of the meeting called under Rule 4 shall be drawn up by the Presiding.Officerand R. 7 GRAM PANCH. KE 8ARPANCH ... PRA8TAV) NIYAM, 1994 (PR)205 recorded in the minute book kept i:1 the Panchayat for recording the pro~eedings of-11smeetings and sign it. 7. Safe keeping of Records.-(l) The Presiding Officer shall keep in safe custody the ballot papers referrerl to in sub-Rule (5)of Rule 5, in his officeduly sealed along with a copy 0= the minutes of the proceedings for period of one year. . (2) The minutes of proceeding re~orded under'sub-Rule (1) shall in- c1ude,- (i) name of the officebearers :;>resent; (il) the decision ofthe meeting on the motion ofno-confidence; and (iil) when such decision is not unanimous the number of vates for and against such motion 3.ndthe number of those wh::>have remained neutral. . 8. Decision.to be communicated to the Prescribed Authority and theCollector.-\Vhen the Panchayat takes a decision on any motion of no-confidence, the Presiding Officershall communicate forthwith a copy of the proceeding drawn under Rule E to the prescribed authority and the Collector. 9. Repeal.-All previous rules on the subject shall stand repealed from the date of final publication of Liese rules in the "Madhya Pradesh Gazette". . FORM: .::•..'.:' :':::.'.~:"'::'':'-::'::~:;':'~';::''~~~~li~i:~~~}o~:i~~;~i;-;::':' ~;~:.:'.:~ ..~.L"O:.=-::;':'.':-:':.:.:::-: :;':;';.'=-0 ~:~~~:/.:'.::: -" 10. -,--- _. -- -- , The Prescribed Authority . .................................... I/We intend to move a motion ofno-confidence against .S~panchiUp-Sar;>anch of Gram Parichayat ,...........• President./Vice- President of Janapad Panchayat ...............• President/Vice-President of Zila Panchayat . The grounds of po-confidence motion are as under:--:' ~i@.!at~e _ ""_"' . .......................... ~.' ~ . ~: 4 - I~.~.~...~-~ ..~..~~:.......... 4 __ - ---- ._-_ .._-_.-"-2.--:~~~.~~~~.~~.~~-.~-:-:= -----.-----.-------.----_.-----_..---- ------.----------------------------- 3 ,. :.. .Place .......•....•.... Date ~...... . . '._._--.__ . •Strike out which is not applicable. f ) t \ ".f.: .... - -_.- . - _.j .............• "'-' "'-' ..- .._ '.'" •....... '.
Roop's Law Assist