2011 (11) TMI 625 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeals and Revisions Against No-Confidence Motions: Gujarat Panchayat Act Analysis

The court examined the maintainability of appeals or revisions against a 'motion of no confidence' under the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993. It was held that ... - Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of appeal or revision against a 'motion of no confidence' under Sections 242, 249, or 259 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993.2. Interim relief available to the incumbent against whom the motion of no confidence is passed.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Maintainability of Appeal or Revision Against 'Motion of No Confidence'The court examined whether an incumbent against whom a Panchayat has passed a 'motion of no confidence' can challenge it by way of appeal under Section 242 or revision under Sections 249 or 259 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993. The analysis was divided into the maintainability of appeals and revisions separately for Gram Panchayat, Taluka Panchayat, and District Panchayat.Maintainability of Appeal under Section 242:- Gram Panchayat and Taluka Panchayat: The court held that carrying a motion of no confidence by the requisite majority cannot be termed as an 'order' or 'decision' of the Panchayat. Therefore, no appeal under Section 242 of the Act is competent against such motions.- District Panchayat: Similarly, the motion of no confidence passed by the District Panchayat does not qualify as an 'order' or 'decision,' making appeals under Section 242 not maintainable.Maintainability of Revision under Section 259:- General Rule: The court found that the revisional powers under Section 259 are not available against the carrying of a motion of no confidence, as it cannot be termed as an 'order' passed by the Panchayat.- Exception: If the District Panchayat has already exercised appellate power under Section 242, the decision made by the District Panchayat can be revised under Section 259, as it qualifies as an 'order.'The court emphasized that the legislative language 'motion is carried by the requisite majority' distinguishes it from other business transactions of the Panchayat, which involve collective decisions or resolutions. This distinction implies that the statutory provisions for appeals and revisions do not apply to motions of no confidence.Issue 2: Interim Relief for IncumbentThe court addressed what interim relief could be granted to an incumbent against whom a motion of no confidence is passed. The court concluded that:- General Rule: No interim relief should be granted that would counter the statutory provisions for the cessation of office after a motion of no confidence is carried by the requisite majority.- Exception: If the District Panchayat has already exercised appellate power, interim relief may be granted by the State Government under Section 259, considering the legislative intent and democratic principles.Case-Specific Application:In the present case, the petitioner and other members of the Gram Panchayat moved a motion of no confidence against the Sarpanch, which was carried by the requisite majority. The Sarpanch challenged this by filing a revision under Section 259, which was initially entertained but later dismissed by the State Government on the grounds of non-maintainability. The court found that this dismissal was erroneous as the revision was against the appellate decision of the District Panchayat, which is permissible under Section 259.Conclusion:The court set aside the State Government's order dismissing the revision and directed it to hear the revision afresh. Pending the final decision, the court granted interim relief to stay the operation of the District Panchayat's order, preventing the Sarpanch from holding office until the revision is decided.Final Order:The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute. The request for suspending the operation of the judgment to allow the respondent to approach a higher forum was rejected.