the sub- section (3) ofthe Section 95 af the said Act, namely:-

rules · 1993 · Chhattisgarh

Download PDF Parent Act Back to Subordinates

Parent: The Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (9bae2dde01de6f71b43364f3aa18efe2fb00cb99)

Text

; the sub- section (3) ofthe Section 95 af the said Act, namely:- 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 requires,- (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)Ifthey 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.:,-:..~.~ ~-:::;:: ..:: 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 ofthe Code of Civil Proced ..u .ue, 1890. Repeal.-The previous rules if any on the subject shall stand repealed on the date of final publicalion of these rules in the "Madhya Pradesh Gazette".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 UPSARP ANCH, JANAPAD PANCHAYAT TATHA ZILA PANCHAYAT KE PRESIDENT TATHA VICE-PRESIDENT KE VIRUD

Rule TOC

1993 · (N1 the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam,

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

340 · v. Dhannalal, 2003 (4) MPLJ 378=2004 (1) JLJ g

340 ·

1997 · (2) JLJ 397'1 .. Mah~sh Prasad v. State of M.P., 397'1: .

1997 · (2) JLJ _

1997 · (2) JLJ 397 of notice. Mahesh ,Prasad v. State of M.P., notice but it

1997 · (2) JLJ s for

397 · -.

10 · Adjournment of meeting called for considering motion of no- confidence against Sarpanch.-[I] Once the meeting ofnoconfidence 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 officerincluding 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. 682.

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 for consideration 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)of Section 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 · Validity ofresolution-Sarpanch has a right to speak.-A noconfidence 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].

10 ·