MAUJI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2904 and 3307 of 1972 filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as they raise similar questions of law and fact.

(2.) The petitioner in each case had been elected as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat for his Sabha area in the last Panchayat elections. The members of the Panchayat were dissatisfied with him and wanted to remove him from office by passing a resolution under the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 . The relevant extracts from this Section are reproduced below :-

(3.) From the above, it may appear that the Director of Panchayats has to accord permission or approval at two different stages. He must first grant previous permission to the holding of an extraordinary general meeting by the Panches for this purpose. After the resolution expressing non-confidence in the Sarpanch has been passed, the Director has again to accord approval to the decision taken for the removal of the Sarpanch. It cannot be argued that the decision to remove the Sarpanch could be anticipated or taken for granted by the Director when he gives prior permission to the holding of the meeting. Shri Mehtani, the learned counsel for the respondent State, has frankly conceded that in both these cases, the prior permission to hold the meeting had been granted by the Director but that no approval of the decision actually taken in that meeting had been accorded by the Director. No time limit has, however, been fixed for the Director's approval of the resolution passed by the Panches and it would still be open to the Director to accord that approval before the next step for the election or appointment of the petitioner's successor-in-office is taken. In Civil Writ Petition No. 2904 of 1972, Mauji Ram petitioner's successor was elected on 7.9.1972 and in Civil Writ Petition No. 3307 of 1972, one Tek Ram had been appointed to officiate as Sarpanch in place of Sis Ram petitioner. In the last mentioned case, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer has himself, set aside the appointment of Tek Ram on the ground that the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 , makes no provision for any such appointments. Copy of the B.D.P.O's order is Annexure 'R-C' to the return filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. In the other case, the election of the new Sarpanch has to be set aside as it could not take place before the Director had accorded his approval, if at all, to the resolution passed by the Panches in the meeting about which prior permission had been taken from the Director.