Y GOPAL NAIDU Vs. SUB COLLECTOR PARVATHIPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction, after calling for the proceedings of the meeting of the Rushingi Gram Panchayat held on 7th. August, 1965 and to quash the same. It arises in the following circumstances:

(2.) While the matters stood thus, the Sarpanch, who is the Petitioner before us filed this petition challenging the correctness and validity of the resolution expressing no confidence against him passed on 7/8/1965. Three grounds of attack have been put forth. It was firstly contented that the requisition signed by six members is bad in law in as much as the requisitionists could not have fixed a particular date on which the Sarpanch ought to convene the meeting. In support of this contention reliance was placed on Rule 4(1) of Schedule I. The said rule is as follows:

(3.) In this case, it is no doubt true that the requisitionists stated in the notice that they requested the Sarpanch to convene a meeting on 26/7/1965 It "dispute that the requisition was in order as it was signed by the appropriate number of members of the Gram Panchayat. It is also not in dispute that it was served on the Sarpanch well within ten days before 26th of July 1965 The only contention advanced by Mr. Dikshitulu the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that as the requisitionists themselves fixed the date of the meeting as 26th of July 1965, the requisition is vitiated. We find no substance in this contention. In order to determine the ten clear days time before which the notice ought to be served upon the Sarpanch by the requisitionists, it becomes necessary to fix tentatively a day for the meeting under Rule 4(1). That is what was done by the requisitionists. No doubt, the rule says that the requisition should specify the period within which and the purpose for which the meeting should be held. But this period is to be calculated between the date on which the notice is served on the Sapranch and the day of the meeting as mentioned in the requisition by the requisitionists. It is not obligatory on the part of the Sarpanch to carry out the request of the requisitionists and hold the meeting on the day specified in the requisition as would be clear from sub-rule (2) of that Rule. The words "specifies the period within which the meeting is to be held" do not mean anything more than stating that on or before a particular day the meeting should be convened by the Sarpanch. What is necessary to see is that. The day tentatively fixed by the requisitionists should be so fixed that it should be more than ten days after the said notice is served upon the sarpanch. In this case, the date, 26/7/1965, admittedly falls beyond ten clear day as the notice was served on the Sarpanch on 14/7/1965 We therefore find no difficulty in rejecting this contention as we are satisfied that the requisition does not suffer from any infirmity in as much as it satisfies the requirements of Rule 4(1).