KISAN BABAN RAUT Vs. COLLECTOR AKOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case was elected as a Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Balapur, in an election held in the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on 4th April, 1975. One Shri J. H. Sarap, who was the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, tendered his resignation on 6-3-1975 and Vice-Chairman Shri Idhol also tendered his resignation on 5-3-1975. On account of these resignations vacancies in the offices of Chairman and Vice-Chairman were declared and thereafter the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola by exercising his powers under Sub-section (1) of Sec, 75 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, referred to hereinafter as the Act, had chosen one Shri G. P. Patil, who was then working as the Chairman of the subject committee of the Zilla Parishad, to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. till the election of the Chairman takes place. Thereafter it appears from the record that the Chief Executive Officer directed the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Balapur, to convene a meeting to fill in the vacancy of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti. According to the petitioner, this was done by the Chief Executive Officer by virtue of the power vested in him under Section 75 read with Section 64 of the Act. In pursuance of this notice issued by the Block Development Officer a meeting took place on 4th April, 1975. All the members of the Panchayat Samiti participated and voted in the said meeting and the petitioner was declared elected as the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, as he obtained majority of votes. According to the petitioner, none of the members objected to the validity of convening of the meeting, nor they raised any dispute in this behalf. After the election was over, the Block Development Officer, Balapur requested the Collector, Akola to notify the name of the petitioner as per provisions of Section 9 of the Act. However, the Collector raised a dispute in this behalf and ultimately made a reference to the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur under Section 68-A of the Act. The Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, vide his order dated 11-12-1975 came to the conclusion that the meeting held was illegal and consequently the election of the petitioner as the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti held in the said meeting is also illegal. He, therefore, set aside the said election and directed the Chief Executive Officer, Akola to report the vacancy in the office of the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, Balapur, to the Collector, Akola.

(2.) Being aggrieved by this order passed by the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government under Section 68-A of the Act. The said appeal was dismissed by the State Government vide its order dated 1st June, 1976. Against these orders the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Shri Mandlekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended before us that the order passed by the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, is without jurisdiction as nobody has raised a dispute challenging the election of the petitioner and the Collector had no power, authority or jurisdiction to raise such a dispute suo motu. He also contended that the meeting convened by the Chief Executive Officer by virtue of the power vested in him under Section 75 (1) of the Act is perfectly legal and valid. Even otherwise, even if it is assumed that there was any defect or irregularity in convening of the meeting then also the said defect or irregularity cannot vitiate the proceedings of the meeting in which the petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, in view of the provisions of Section 112 read with Section 118 of Act. According to Shri Mandlekar, the said defect or irregularity in convening the meeting had not affected the merits of the case, because all the members eligible to participate and vote at the meeting were present and the petitioner was elected by majority. Nobody had ever raised any objection in this behalf. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, both the authorities below have committed an error in setting aside the election of the petitioner as the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti.