PRAHALAD SINGH PATEL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners question the decision of the respondents by which they have been held to be disqualified to hold charge of Panchayat Secretaries of their respective Gram Panchayats, on the ground that they are related to one or the other office bearer of the Gram Panchayat.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to these writ petitions are that the petitioners were earlier appointed by their respective Gram Panchayats as the Panchayat Karmi as provided under Section 70 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Later on, they were appointed as Panchayat Secretaries by the prescribed authority as contemplated under Section 69 (1) of the Act. In some of the cases these appointments have taken place prior to 7-1-1997, i. e. , before coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996. However, in some cases these appointments have taken place after the aforesaid date. Further there is no controversy that petitioners in all these writ petitions are related to one or the other office bearer of the Panchayat.

(3.) SECTION 69 (1) of the Act prior to its amendment by the M. P. Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 1996 (M. P. Act No. 2 of 1997) inter-alias provided that the State Government or the prescribed authority may appoint Secretary for Gram Panchayat or group of two or more Gram Panchayats. Section 15 of the Act No. 2 of 1997 added besides other provisions, a proviso in 69 (1) of the Act which provided that person, relative of any office bearer of the concerned Gram Panchayat shall not hold charge of Secretary of Gram Panchayat. Expression "relative" has also been explained. It is relevant here to state that the aforesaid amendment came into force on 7-1-1997. Section 15 of the Act No. 2 of 1997 which is relevant for the purpose is being quoted below :-