THAKOR DUNGARJI VALJI Vs. T V KRISHNAMURTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but an interesting question of law arises for consideration of this court in the present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Though the petition is also styled as one falling under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari as the impugned order which is sought to be got quashed by this court in the present proceedings is a revisional order passed by the first respondent Development Commissioner exercising his revisional jurisdiction under sec. 305 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act. It must therefore held that the present petition rightly invokes supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Art 227 of the Constitution of India. The short question which has been posed for my consideration is as to whether an associate member of a taluka panchayat is competent to move a resolution at the meeting of the panchayat for constitution of the executive committee of the said panchayat.

(2.) The petitioner contend that an associate member has such a right. Contesting respondent No. 2 submits to the contrary and the contrary submission raised by respondent No. 2 is approved by a judicial order of respondent No. 1 revisional authority functioning under the Act.

(3.) It is now time for me to refer to the crucial events that happened on 30-3-1981 on which day a meeting was held for conducting various businesses as per the provisions of the (Gujarat Taluka and District Panchayats (Procedure) Rules 1963 hereinafter referred to as the procedure Rules. Out of various items on the agenda of the meeting of respondent No 3 panchayat item No. 3 pertained to constitution of the executive committee and social justice committee of the said panchayat. At the said meeting it was decided to have 7 members on the executive committee and 8 members on the social justice committee. For election of members to the executive committee two proposals were moved. One was moved by Patel Joitabhai Keshatabhai a sitting M.L.A. from the said constituency and it was seconded by petitioner No. 2. That was the proposal which suggested names of 7 members who according to that proposal deserved to be included in the executive committee; while the rival proposal was moved by one Revashanker and was seconded by one Gagabhai Chauhan. By the said rival proposal 7 other names of members were suggested for the purpose of constituting executive committee. It is obvious that the proposal moved by Patel Joitabhai a sitting M. L. A. and as seconded by petitioner No. 2 included 7 names of members who were siding with them; while the rival proposal moved by Revashanker who had successful challenged petitioner No. 2s election as president of respondent No. 3 panchayat and who bad displaced him as president included names of 7 members who were followers in Revashankers camp. It appears that when these rival proposals were put to vote proposal moved by Joitabhai Patel the sitting M.L.A. and seconded by petitioner No. 2 obtained majority of votes from the members present at the meeting. The rival proposal put forward by Revashanker and seconded by Gagabhai Chauhan got lost. That is how the members whose names were included in the successful proposal became entitled to constitute the executive committee or respondent No. 3 panchayat. The said executive committee starting functioning from 1-4-1981. It appears that thereafter somewhere in September 1981 approximately on 17-9-1981 a revision application was moved under sec. 305 of the Act by respondent No. 2 herein before the Development Commissioner challenging the validity of the election of the executive committee and social justice committee as held in the meeting of 30-3-1981. In the present petition I am not concerned with the constitution of social justice committee and hence I will not refer to the same hereafter. So far as challenge to the election of the executive committee as put forward in the revision application on behalf of respondent No. 2 was concerned it was submitted before the Development Commissioner by respondent no. 2 that the proposal which was moved in the meeting of 30-3-1981 by Patel Joitabhai a sitting M.L.A. was not a legal proposed at all as he was not an elected member of respondent No. 3 panchayat but be was merely an associate member of respondent No. 3 panchayat and consequently such an associate member who was not a full-fledged elected member was not competent to move the resolution in question. It was further submitted as a corollary that the said resolution was a still born-one. Hence even if it got seconded by a regularly elected member of respondent No. 3 panchayat it had no legal effect and consequently formation of the executive committee pursuant to such an invalid resolution was null and void and had no legal effect whatsoever. The Development Commissioner exercising his revisional jurisdiction after more than 5 1/2 months of formation of the executive committee took the view that associate member of respondent No. 3 taluka panchayat had no right to move the resolution in question and consequently all subsequent steps taken at the meeting of 30-3-1981 pursuant to such resolution were null and void and of no legal effect and consequently held the Development Commissioner constitution of the executive committee pursuant to such void resolution was of no legal effect It is the aforesaid decision of the revisional authority which has been brought in challenge in the present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners who were elected as members of the executive committee as per the impugned resolution moved by Patel Joitabhai a sitting M.L.A. and an associate member of respondent No. 3 panchayat. The petitioner contend that the Development Commissioner was patently in error when he took the view that the proposal moved by an associate member for constitution of the executive committee was unauthorised or illegal in any manner.