NANDULAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the petitioner sarpanch under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Court of the District Munsif, Mahabnbabad, holding that he has incurred the disqualification to act as Sarpanch as he did not convene any meeting of the Gram Panchayat for a period of 90 days, gives rise to a short but interesting question of law relating to interpretation of Section 25 (2) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) Admittedly the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Dornakal and functioning as such till he is said to have ceased to be so, for his failure to convene meeting of the Gram Panchavat for a period of 90 days from 24-7-1977. The respondent by his proceedings dated 2-12-1977 declared tba' the petitioner had ceased to be the Sarpanch as he had failed to convene any meeting of the Gram Panchayat from 24-7-77 to 30-10-77 as required by Section 25 (2) of the Act. The Petitioner filed an appication before the court of the District Munsif. Mahabubabad under Section 25 (3) of the Act for a declaration that he has not incurred any disqualification to act as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchavat, Dornakal. The respondent countered the allegations in the application as mis-conceived and mis-interpreted, apart from being incorrect. In support of the claim of the petitioner that he has not incurred disqualification to act as Sarpanch and that he has done his duty to convene the meeting of the Gram Panchayat within a period of 90 days as required by section 25 (2). he examined himself as P.W.1, the then Executive Officer. Gram Panchayat as P.W-2 and the present Executive Officer, as P W. 3 and also filed Exs. Al to A 10. The respondent examined one K. Butchaiah as P.W.1. P.W 1 deposed that be had directed P.W.2 the Executive Officer to convene a meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 3-10-77 as per office order No. 36 marked as as Ex A. 4 dated 23-9-77 as per Ex A5 dated 12-10-77. He bad directed P.W. 2 under Ex A 6 finally to convene the meeting on 27-10 77 and it was the general practice that he directs the Executive Officer to convene a meeting on a particular day and the Executive Officer used to issue qotice to members of the Gram Panchayat by fixing the date of the meeting as advised bv him. He also complained against the then Executive Officer Sri Jalel Siddiqui to the collector (Pancbayats), who gave a charge sheet against the Executive Officer and therefore the then Executive Officer bore grudge as he was not on good terms with him and he purposely failed to convene the meeting as directed by him in Ex. A4. This evidence of P.W.I has been corroborated by P.W.2, who admitted that he received the order Ex A4 from P.W.1 to convene a meeting on 3-10-77 and he ordered the clerk through Ex. A7 dated 24-9-77 to issue agenda notice to all the members but the clerk did not issue the notice as he was otherwise busy. Ex. A8 dated 12-10-77 is the note made by the clerk Jaganmohanacban. P.W. 2 admitted that through Ex. A5 dated 12-10-77 P.W.I had called for his explanation for not convening a meeting as required in Ex A4. He, in his turn, called for the explanation of the clerk. Ex. A9 dated 15-10-77 is the endorsement on the office order made by P.W. 2 and Ex. A10 dated 17-10-77 is the explanation of the clerk. The records produced bv the Government Pleader and the Original notices, issued to the members of the Gram Panchavat intimating the convening of the meeting of the Gram Panchavat, filed by the writ petitioner clearly indicate and establish that it was the Executive Officer. Dornakal, that was actually issuing the notices to the members of the Gram Panchayat intimating the convening of the meeting as ordered or directed by the Sarpanch. This documentary evidence is available consistently since 1970 till date. The District Munsif in his order clearly found that the Divisional Panchayat Officer admitted that on 23-9-77 the petitioner has asked the Executive Officer, to convene the meeting and the P.W. 2 the then Executive officer who was not in good terms with the petitioner as he had reported against him to the collector. Panchayat wing and who was served with a charge sheet, and not carried out instructions and failed to issue the notice as per his directions in order No. 36 the Englih translation of order No. 36 Ex. A 4, dated 23-9-77 reads thus :

(3.) The sum and substance of the contention of Sri S. Parvatha Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitoner-sarpanch has discharged his duty to convene meeting of the Gram Panchayat within one month and atleast one meeting within a period of 90 days from the last meeting, that no meeting of Gram Pancbayat could be held within a period of 90 days from 24-7-77 due to failure of the Executive officer and the clerk in not carrying out the petitioner's orders to send the notice for the meeting as per the practice prevailing in the Gram Pancbayat but not due to any fault or failure on the part of the sarpanch in the discharge of his duties, and that, therefore, he cannot be held to have ceased to be the Sarpanch as per the provisions of Sub-Section (2) to Secticn 25 of the Act. This claim of the petitioner is resisted by the Government Pleader for Home, contending interalia that it is the duty of the Sarpanch under Section 25 (1) (b) to convene the meetings of the Gram Panchayat and the fact that no meeting was held within a period of 90 days from the last meeting held on 24-7-79 is sufficient to attract the provisions of sub-section (2) to Section 25 of the Act, and the failure of the Executive Officer, who no doubt used to summon the meetings would not in any way come to he aid of the Sarpanch