Panchayat:Repo18/Law Manual Page0208: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
s (8) & (9) by Act 13 of 1999, w.e.f. 24-3-1999. Prior to the substitution(7) No resolution of a Panchayat shall be modified, varied or cancelled by that Panchayat within a period of three months from the date of passing thereof, except by a resolution supported by two-thirds of the whole number of members of such Panchayat. | s (8) & (9) by Act 13 of 1999, w.e.f. 24-3-1999. Prior to the substitution(7) No resolution of a Panchayat shall be modified, varied or cancelled by that Panchayat within a period of three months from the date of passing thereof, except by a resolution supported by two-thirds of the whole number of members of such Panchayat. | ||
56[(8) Any member, who was present at a meeting of the Panchayat shall have the right to give the Secretary a note of dissent regarding a resolution passed by the Panchayat if has voted against such resolution within forty-eight hours of the conclusion of the meeting. | 56[(8) Any member, who was present at a meeting of the Panchayat shall have the right to give the Secretary a note of dissent regarding a resolution passed by the Panchayat if has voted against such resolution within forty-eight hours of the conclusion of the meeting. | ||
(9) The Secretary shall forward copy of the minutes of every meeting of the Panchayat and the Copy of the note of dissent if any, received under sub-section (8) to the Government or to the officer authorised by Government in this behalf, within ten days after the date of the meeting.] | (9) The Secretary shall forward copy of the minutes of every meeting of the Panchayat and the Copy of the note of dissent if any, received under sub-section (8) to the Government or to the officer authorised by Government in this behalf, within ten days after the date of the meeting.] | ||
NOTES Even if some of the members of Panchayat Committee dissent and the decision is carried by the | |||
{{center|'''NOTES'''}} | |||
Even if some of the members of Panchayat Committee dissent and the decision is carried by the | |||
esponsibility would make the same, the collective decision of the Panchayat. Just because one of the members has not accepted the decision, he cannot wriggle out of his responsibility for the decision that has been taken. - Vanaraj v. Santhanpara Grama Panchayath, Idukki and Others – 2014 (1) KHC 766 : ILR 2014 (1) Ker. 1067: 2014 (1) KLT 1065. | esponsibility would make the same, the collective decision of the Panchayat. Just because one of the members has not accepted the decision, he cannot wriggle out of his responsibility for the decision that has been taken. - Vanaraj v. Santhanpara Grama Panchayath, Idukki and Others – 2014 (1) KHC 766 : ILR 2014 (1) Ker. 1067: 2014 (1) KLT 1065. | ||
The applicability of Rule 3(a) of Panchayat Raj (Manner of Service of Notices) Rules was considered in respect of conveying of Grama Sabhas in the decision in Mavoor Grama Panchayat v. Ombudsman, Local Self Government Institutions. It was held that the above rule applies only in cases where the Panchayat Raj Act or Rules or by Bye-laws made thereunder requires the Panchayat to serve notices to a person. It was found that separate rules are there for the convening of the meetings of the Grama Sabhas. – Krishna Kumar C. v. Kerala State Election Commission, Tvm. and Another - 2010 (3) KHC 344 : ILR 2010 (3) Ker. 301 : 2010 (3) KLT 315. | The applicability of Rule 3(a) of Panchayat Raj (Manner of Service of Notices) Rules was considered in respect of conveying of Grama Sabhas in the decision in Mavoor Grama Panchayat v. Ombudsman, Local Self Government Institutions. It was held that the above rule applies only in cases where the Panchayat Raj Act or Rules or by Bye-laws made thereunder requires the Panchayat to serve notices to a person. It was found that separate rules are there for the convening of the meetings of the Grama Sabhas. – Krishna Kumar C. v. Kerala State Election Commission, Tvm. and Another - 2010 (3) KHC 344 : ILR 2010 (3) Ker. 301 : 2010 (3) KLT 315. | ||
Section 161 of the Panchayat Raj Act is concerned with the meetings of the Panchayats. Subsection (1) states that "the meetings of a Panchayat at any level shall be held at such intervals, as may be prescribed." Sub-section (4) of the said section provides that "Save as provided in this Act, the time and place of meeting of a Panchayat, the quorum of such meeting, the procedure for calling such meeting and the procedure at such meeting shall be such as may be prescril The Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995, is the rules applicable as all these aspects are covered by the said rules. The said method is plainly legal and valid and the argument, therefore, that for want of proper notice the said meeting has to be eschewed for considering the question of disqualification, cannot be accepted. The same is the situation in respect of the affixture effected for the meeting held on 29-11-2008. There were three clear days of notice in respect of the five meetings which are crucial for the consideration of disqualification. Therefore, the only plea raised by the petitioner that there was no three clear days for the service of notice, having been found against by the Commission, it does not require any interference, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Para 22) — Krishna Kumar C. v. Kerala State Election Commission, Tvm. and Another - 2010 (3) KHC 344 : ILR 2010 (3) Ker. 301 : 2010(3) KLT 315. Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar and Others, 2001 KHC 1617 [2001 (7) SCC 197 : AIR 2001 SC 3596; (Paras 8, 11); Daryoth Singh v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1973 Delhi 58; (Paras 7, 11); Kuppuzamy v. Viswam Chits, 1986 KH 32 : 1986 KLT 98: 1986 KLJ 145 : ILR 1986 (2) Ker. 160 : 1986 KLN 31; (Para 24); Mavoor Grama Panchayat v. Ombudsman, Local Self Government Institutions, 2007 (4) KHC 803 : 2007 (4) KLT 886 : ILR 2007 (4) Ker. 361 : 2008 (1) KLJ 300; (Para 21); Radhakrishnan v. Join Registrar, 2008 (2) KHC 772 : 2008 (2) KLT 385 : 2008 (2) KLJ 65 : ILR 2008 (2) Ker. 489; (Paras 9, 11); Surabhi v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Kasaragod, 2010 (1) KHC 68 : 2010 (1) KLT 15; (Paras 6, 11)- Referred to). | Section 161 of the Panchayat Raj Act is concerned with the meetings of the Panchayats. Subsection (1) states that "the meetings of a Panchayat at any level shall be held at such intervals, as may be prescribed." Sub-section (4) of the said section provides that "Save as provided in this Act, the time and place of meeting of a Panchayat, the quorum of such meeting, the procedure for calling such meeting and the procedure at such meeting shall be such as may be prescril The Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995, is the rules applicable as all these aspects are covered by the said rules. The said method is plainly legal and valid and the argument, therefore, that for want of proper notice the said meeting has to be eschewed for considering the question of disqualification, cannot be accepted. The same is the situation in respect of the affixture effected for the meeting held on 29-11-2008. There were three clear days of notice in respect of the five meetings which are crucial for the consideration of disqualification. Therefore, the only plea raised by the petitioner that there was no three clear days for the service of notice, having been found against by the Commission, it does not require any interference, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Para 22) — Krishna Kumar C. v. Kerala State Election Commission, Tvm. and Another - 2010 (3) KHC 344 : ILR 2010 (3) Ker. 301 : 2010(3) KLT 315. Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar and Others, 2001 KHC 1617 [2001 (7) SCC 197 : AIR 2001 SC 3596; (Paras 8, 11); Daryoth Singh v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1973 Delhi 58; (Paras 7, 11); Kuppuzamy v. Viswam Chits, 1986 KH 32 : 1986 KLT 98: 1986 KLJ 145 : ILR 1986 (2) Ker. 160 : 1986 KLN 31; (Para 24); Mavoor Grama Panchayat v. Ombudsman, Local Self Government Institutions, 2007 (4) KHC 803 : 2007 (4) KLT 886 : ILR 2007 (4) Ker. 361 : 2008 (1) KLJ 300; (Para 21); Radhakrishnan v. Join Registrar, 2008 (2) KHC 772 : 2008 (2) KLT 385 : 2008 (2) KLJ 65 : ILR 2008 (2) Ker. 489; (Paras 9, 11); Surabhi v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Kasaragod, 2010 (1) KHC 68 : 2010 (1) KLT 15; (Paras 6, 11)- Referred to). | ||
The statutory provision enabling the Panchayat to pass a resolution is Section 161(7). A reading of this provision shows that the Panchayat can cancel its resolution within 3 months of its passing and | The statutory provision enabling the Panchayat to pass a resolution is Section 161(7). A reading of this provision shows that the Panchayat can cancel its resolution within 3 months of its passing and | ||
Latest revision as of 04:30, 24 January 2019
s (8) & (9) by Act 13 of 1999, w.e.f. 24-3-1999. Prior to the substitution(7) No resolution of a Panchayat shall be modified, varied or cancelled by that Panchayat within a period of three months from the date of passing thereof, except by a resolution supported by two-thirds of the whole number of members of such Panchayat.
56[(8) Any member, who was present at a meeting of the Panchayat shall have the right to give the Secretary a note of dissent regarding a resolution passed by the Panchayat if has voted against such resolution within forty-eight hours of the conclusion of the meeting.
(9) The Secretary shall forward copy of the minutes of every meeting of the Panchayat and the Copy of the note of dissent if any, received under sub-section (8) to the Government or to the officer authorised by Government in this behalf, within ten days after the date of the meeting.]
Even if some of the members of Panchayat Committee dissent and the decision is carried by the esponsibility would make the same, the collective decision of the Panchayat. Just because one of the members has not accepted the decision, he cannot wriggle out of his responsibility for the decision that has been taken. - Vanaraj v. Santhanpara Grama Panchayath, Idukki and Others – 2014 (1) KHC 766 : ILR 2014 (1) Ker. 1067: 2014 (1) KLT 1065.
The applicability of Rule 3(a) of Panchayat Raj (Manner of Service of Notices) Rules was considered in respect of conveying of Grama Sabhas in the decision in Mavoor Grama Panchayat v. Ombudsman, Local Self Government Institutions. It was held that the above rule applies only in cases where the Panchayat Raj Act or Rules or by Bye-laws made thereunder requires the Panchayat to serve notices to a person. It was found that separate rules are there for the convening of the meetings of the Grama Sabhas. – Krishna Kumar C. v. Kerala State Election Commission, Tvm. and Another - 2010 (3) KHC 344 : ILR 2010 (3) Ker. 301 : 2010 (3) KLT 315.
Section 161 of the Panchayat Raj Act is concerned with the meetings of the Panchayats. Subsection (1) states that "the meetings of a Panchayat at any level shall be held at such intervals, as may be prescribed." Sub-section (4) of the said section provides that "Save as provided in this Act, the time and place of meeting of a Panchayat, the quorum of such meeting, the procedure for calling such meeting and the procedure at such meeting shall be such as may be prescril The Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995, is the rules applicable as all these aspects are covered by the said rules. The said method is plainly legal and valid and the argument, therefore, that for want of proper notice the said meeting has to be eschewed for considering the question of disqualification, cannot be accepted. The same is the situation in respect of the affixture effected for the meeting held on 29-11-2008. There were three clear days of notice in respect of the five meetings which are crucial for the consideration of disqualification. Therefore, the only plea raised by the petitioner that there was no three clear days for the service of notice, having been found against by the Commission, it does not require any interference, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Para 22) — Krishna Kumar C. v. Kerala State Election Commission, Tvm. and Another - 2010 (3) KHC 344 : ILR 2010 (3) Ker. 301 : 2010(3) KLT 315. Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar and Others, 2001 KHC 1617 [2001 (7) SCC 197 : AIR 2001 SC 3596; (Paras 8, 11); Daryoth Singh v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1973 Delhi 58; (Paras 7, 11); Kuppuzamy v. Viswam Chits, 1986 KH 32 : 1986 KLT 98: 1986 KLJ 145 : ILR 1986 (2) Ker. 160 : 1986 KLN 31; (Para 24); Mavoor Grama Panchayat v. Ombudsman, Local Self Government Institutions, 2007 (4) KHC 803 : 2007 (4) KLT 886 : ILR 2007 (4) Ker. 361 : 2008 (1) KLJ 300; (Para 21); Radhakrishnan v. Join Registrar, 2008 (2) KHC 772 : 2008 (2) KLT 385 : 2008 (2) KLJ 65 : ILR 2008 (2) Ker. 489; (Paras 9, 11); Surabhi v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Kasaragod, 2010 (1) KHC 68 : 2010 (1) KLT 15; (Paras 6, 11)- Referred to).
The statutory provision enabling the Panchayat to pass a resolution is Section 161(7). A reading of this provision shows that the Panchayat can cancel its resolution within 3 months of its passing and