PATEL MANUBHAI KHODIDAS Vs. SONARA SHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an elected member of Mehsana Taluka Panchayat Respondent No. 3 is the President of that Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that a large number of members of the Panchayat have lost confidence in respondent No. 3 as they have found that be is lethargic in performance of his duties. For that reason Sagrambhai Chaudhari another elected member of the Panchayat had given a notice of his intention to move a no-confidence motion against respondent No. 3 on 15-12-1388. Respondent No. 3 was duty bound to convene a meeting for considering the motion of no-confidence pursuant to the said notice but he did not do so in collusion with respondent No. 1 who is the Secretary-cum-Project Officer-cum-Taluka Development Officer of that Panchayat. Both of them in collusion filed the said notice on the ground that the same was not in the prescribed form. Again on 31-1-1989 the petitioner alongwith 21 other members gave a notice of their intention to move a no-confidence motion against respondent No. 3. The said notice was banded over to respondent No. 1 Again in collusion with each other respondent No. 3 the President by his order dated 10-2-1989 directed that the same may be filed on the ground that it does not contain reasons for moving the no-confidence motion and therefore is not in accordance with law. It is the petitioners case that the said order passed by the third respondent is illegal being contrary to the provisions of Sec. 60 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961 read with Rule 17 of the Gujarat Taluka & District Panchayats (Procedure) Rules 1963 It is also his case that respondent No. 1 ought to have made a report to the District Development Officer-respondent No. 2 as respondent No. 3 the President had failed to call a meeting for considering the motion of no-confidence. In doing so he has also acted contrary to the provisions of law.

(2.) After Rule was issued and respondent No. 1 filed his reply pointing out that he had made a report on 14-2-1989 to the 2nd respondent the petitioner has amended the petition and has raised further contention that it was the duty of respondent No. 2 to call a meeting within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said report and as he has not done so his inaction is also illegal. The petitioner has therefore prayed for a writ of Mandamus directing 2nd respondent to call a meeting of Mehsana Taluka Panchayat for considering the no confidence motion proposed to be moved by the petitioner.

(3.) Respondent No. 3 has defended his order by stating that the same is not illegal. All the other respondents have supported the order passed by respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 1 in his reply affidavit has denied the allegation of collusion with respondent No. 3 and further pointed out that be had earlier forwarded one copy of the notice to the District Development Officer and had also made a report to him as required by law. Respondent No. 2 has not filed any reply but it was submitted on his behalf that he had received the said report of the first respondent on 15-2-1989 and as the petition was filed before the expiry of 16 days from the date of receipt of the said report he had not thought it fit to convene a meeting for the purpose of consideration of the proposed non-confidence motion.