SOLANKI KALABHAI GAGABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for an appropriate writ direction or order setting aside the notification dated February 7 1961 issued by the Collector Kaira declaring nine persons as constituting the Village Panchayat of village Masra in Thasara Taluka. It appears that on March 14 1956 the State Government declared by a notification under sec. 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958 the village Masra to be a village within the meaning of that section. The village thereafter was divided into three wards and each ward was to have three members the total thus of the panchayats members being nine. Two of the nine seats were reserved for women. Under the Village Panchayats Election Rules 1959 the Mamlatdar issued a notification declaring therein the various stages of the election which was to be held on November 9 1960 For our purposes it is sufficient to state that under the notification the date of filing nomination papers was October 25 1950 and the nomination papers were to be submitted between 11-00 a.m. to 2-00 p.m. on that day at the office of the Mamlatdar at Thasara. The scrutiny of the nomination papers was fixed on the next day i.e. October 26 1960 It is an admitted fact that no one came to file the nomination papers upto 2-00 p.m. on October 25 1960 The result therefore was that there were no valid nomination papers filed for the purpose of the election and obviously the further stages of that election notified by the Mamlatdar could not be proceeded with.

(2.) The petitioners however allege that on account of the fact that no one filed the nomination papers the Block Development Officer accepted an application said to have been field by nine persons alleging that they had been selected by the village people and therefore should be nominated as members of the panchayat and that the Block Development Officer thereupon accepted these nine names and nominated them as members of the panchayat. it is further alleged that though the Block Development Officer accepted the said list of nine persons he issued a notification on February 7 1961 setting out therein the list of nine persons some of whom at least were different from those whose names were set out in the aforesaid application accepted by him. The petitioners then allege that the Block Development Officer after following the illegal procedure as stated above allowed the said nine persons to hold the first meeting on July 14 1961 and that at that meeting one Fatesing Sadabhai and Shanabhai Hemabhai were elected Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch respectively. It is stated that a representation thereafter was made by the village people in which two objections were taken (1) about the illegal manner in which the Block Development Officer had nominated the aforesaid nine persons as members of the panchayat and (2) that those members in any event were not qualified to act as members of the panchayat as they had committed default in payment of the village taxes and were thus disqualified under sec. 14(h) of the Act. In reply to this representation made by the village people the Collector by his reply dated March 30 1962 informed the representationists that it was not the Block Development Officer who had nominated the aforesaid nine persons but that those members were nominated by the Government. As regards the second objection the Collector stated that there was no question of the said nine members being defaulters or being disqualified under sec. 14(h) of the Act as the Village Secretary had not issued or served upon them the requisite bills for the taxes. Since those bills were not served upon the members the members could not be said to have been disqualified under sec. 14(h) of the Act.

(3.) It appears from the affidavit in reply of Indravadan K. Patel the Village Panchayat Aval Karkun of Kaira District that neither the facts stated in the petition nor in the Collectors letter were correct and that there was no question either of the Block Development Officer having nominated the said nine persons to be the members of the panchayat or of the Government having nominated those persons as members of the panchayat. From that affidavit it appears that no nomination papers were actually filed until 2-00 p.m. on October 25 1960 However at about 4-00 p.m. on that day an application signed by nine persons was handed over to the Block Development Officer stating that the signatories to that application had gone to the office of that officer to file nominations but when they reached that office they found that the time for filing the nomination papers had expired. That application also stated that those nine persons had been chosen by the village people that their nominations therefore should be accepted and that they should be treated as candidates for the election. The Block Development Officer informed them that such a thing could not be done as nomination papers had not been filed within the time prescribed by the Mamlatdars notification and further informed them that steps would be taken to constitute the village panchayat by having members nominated in accordance with the provisions of the Act. On or about November 9 1960 a member of the District Village Panchayat Mandal elected from amongst the Sarpanchas of the panchayats in Thasara Taluka went to this village accompanied by the Block Development Officer and selected nine persons fit for being nominated as members of the village panchayat. On November 11 1960 the Block Development Officer made a report to the Collector Kaira who under the Act was the ex-officio Chairman of the District Village Panchayat Mandal and submitted along with his report the list of the said nine persons selected by the said member. The Collector thereafter directed that the matter should be placed before the District Panchayat Mandal and accordingly the matter was placed before that Mandal which passed a resolution on that day to the effect that ......the following vacancies for the members of the village panchayat which were to be filled up by nomination under sec. 10(3) and sec. 43(1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958 are hereby filled up by nominating the following persons. The resolution in all nominated nine persons including two women to be the members of the village panchayat. It is thus clear that the allegation in the petition that it was the Block Development Officer who had nominated these nine persons as members of the aforesaid panchayat is not correct nor is it correct as stated in the Collectors letter that these nine persons were nominated by the Government. It also appears that the Collector in pursuance of the representations made to him held an enquiry into the allegation that these nine members were disqualified under sec. 14(h). Before the Collector a statement was made by the Secretary of the Village Panchayat in which the said Secretary admitted that he had never served any bills for taxes upon these nine members. That being so there was no question of these nine members being defaulters or being disqualified under sec. 14(h) of the Act. The Collector therefore was right in rejecting the representation made by the village people protesting against these nine members acting as members of the panchayat.