PARMAR JAYDRATHSINH CHANDRASINH Vs. TALUKA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Jaydrathsinh Chandrasinh Parmar, an elected member of the Taluka Panchayat, Halol has filed this Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Constitution of the Social Justice Committee and Executive Committee of the Taluka Panchayat, Halol. The say of the petitioner is that, a Meeting of the elected members of the Taluka Panchayat was held on 11.08.1995 and on that day, an Executive Committee was constituted consisting of five members and so, as Social Justice Committee. By another resolution dated 06.10.1995, four more elected members were inducted to the Executive Committee.

(2.) It is contended by Mr N.V.Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner that, so far as the Social Justice Committee is concerned, its constitution is bad for the reason that, in view of the sub-clause 3(2)(ii) of the Gujarat Taluka Panchayat Social Justice Committee (Constitution and Functions) Rules, 1995, it is necessary to have atleast one elected member from the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribe. It is submitted that all the three members are from Schedule Tribes and there is none from the Scheduled Caste. With respect to the Executive Committee, it is contended that the Taluka Panchayat, in its meeting held on 11.08.1995, constituted Executive Committee consisting of five elected members. There was an objection to the effect that the maximum members in constituting the Executive Committee is nine and therefore, nine persons should be elected to the said Committee. Inspite of this objection, only five members were elected and by a subsequent resolution dated 06.10.1995, four more members were added by election. It is thus, contented that the resolution dated 06/10/1995 is illegal for two reasons, firstly that it amounts to modification and alterations of the resolution dated 11.08.1995 and secondly, it also shortens the period of members of the Executive Committee who were elected under resolution dated 06/10/1995.

(3.) On the other hand, it is contended by Mr H.S.Munshaw, learned counsel for the Taluka Panchayat that, so far as the Social Justice Committee is concerned, the requirement provided under sub-rule (2) of the Rules of 1995, cannot be considered to be mandatory, in view of the fact that sub-clause (7) of section 123 of the Act of 1993 prohibitting a member of panchayat to be a member of more than two committees constituted under the said provision. With respect to the Executive Committee, it is submitted that the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 123 of the Act only provides the outer numbers of the Executive Committee and it is always open for the Taluka Panchayat to elect the members of the Executive Committee on different dates. The only rigor is that they cannot elect more than nine members. It is also submitted that the resolution dated 06.10.1995 is independent and it does not amount to modification or alteration of the resolution dated 11.08.1995.