MINARAM KAR Vs. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER JATNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Resolution dated 30-6-1993 passed by Panchayat Samiti, Jatni, declaring the petitioner to have ceased to be member of the Samity on the ground that she absented herself on three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Samiti held on 31-10-1992, 26-12-1992 and 18-2-1993 without previous written permission of the Samiti, is under challenge in this proceeding.

(2.) The stand taken by the petitioner is that she was very much present in the meeting held on 31-10-1992 and that no notice was served on her regarding the meetings scheduled to be held on 26-12-1992 and 18-2-1993 for which she duly lodged her protest in her letters dated 29-12-1992 and 19-2-1993 (Annexures 3 and 4) despatched under certificates of posting (Annexures 5 and 6). So it cannot be said that the petitioner absented herself from three consecutive meetings of the Samiti, for which she ceased to be member of the Samiti under Section 45(2)(iii) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959. The further stand taken by the petitioner is that the Samiti having not issued any show cause notice before passing the resolution, the case is hit by the principles of natural justice. According to her the impugned resolution has been passed at the behest of the M.L.A., her political opponent.

(3.) The Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, in his counter, while admitting that the petitioner was present in the meeting held on 31-10-1992, contended that issuance of notice of meeting is the duty of the Block Development Officer and it is not possible for him to say whether the notice for the meetings scheduled to be held on 26-12-1992 and 18-2-1993 were actually served on the petitioner or not. He admits receipt of letter as per Annexure 4, in which the petitioner had made grievance that she had not been served with notices for the meetings which were scheduled to be held on 26-12-1992 and 18-2-1993.