SMT. TIKANI BAI Vs. PUNJAB STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, Smt. Tikani Bai, claims to be a co -opted member of the Gram Panchayat Ganaur having been co -opted as such by means of a resolution passed by the Panchayat on 5 -1 -1961. She took oath of her office on 16 -1 -1961 at Rohtak and has since been working as a member of the Panchayat. She was co -opted because there was no woman" candidate at the general election of the Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat, Ganaur was accordingly called upon by the Panchayat Officer to co -opt a woman member. On 2 -1 -1961, all the members of the Panchayat attended The Panchayat meeting and it was decided that the panchayat should meet again on 5 -1 -1961 and in the mean while applications for eligible woman candidates for being co -opted to the Panchayat should be invited. On 5 -1 -1961 at 4 P.M. panchayat accordingly for the purpose of co -opting a women member to the Panchayat the Petitioner being the only Applicant, by majority it was decided send her application to the Panchayat Officer with the recommendation of the Panchayat for her Co -option Shri Kalyan Singh Sarpanch, Shri Richku Ram and Shri Sabu Ram members, voted in favour the Petitioner's co -option but Shri Siri Chand declined to sign the proceedings as token of his consent. The resolution was duly forwarded the, Panchayat Officer who had asked for the co -option of a woman member by 6 -1 -1961. The Petitioner is also stated to have attended a seminar of woman Panches in village Karion, district Amritsar, from 7 -2 -1961 to 11 -2 -1961 and was duly allowed T.A. for the pur -pose by order of the Block Development Officer.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Petitioner's allegations, Shri Siri Chand did not feel happy on the Petitioner co -option, with the result that he along with some others made some complaints to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ganaur in this connection. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer made certain enquiries from the Sarpanch but since the Petitioner was not served with any notice of any proceedings, she instituted a declaratory suit, claiming a declaration that she was a validly co -opted member of the Panchayat. In that suit she claimed relief by way of restraint order against Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the pre sent viz Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil) Sonepat the Gram Panchayat, Ganaur. This suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class Rohtak on 30 -5 -1961 and the Gram Panchayat was restrained and prohibited from interfering with the Petitioner's discharge of duties as a member the Panchayat. The suit against Respondent No. 2 had to be dropped because no proper notice had been served on him under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure. In the meantime it appears that "on 28 -3 -1961. the Sub -Divisional officer (Respondent No. 2) made an order purporting under Section ' 97 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act suspending the resolution of the Panchayat dated 5 -1 -1961 and forwarding his order (Which at one at one stage he described as his report) to the Director of Panchayat, Punjab, for confirmation. This order has also been described in the petition to be wholly illegal, improper and void for various reasons, stated therein. According to the petition the defects in this order were pointed out to the Director of Panchayats and it is claimed that the Director of Panchayats, therefore, rightly ignored 'the said order which was not confirmed.

(3.) THE attack on behalf of the Petitioner based on three main grounds. In the first instance it has been urged that Section 100 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act only justifies interference with executive orders and impugned resolution passed by the Panchayat, cannot be described as an executive order. It is next contended that the order, is mala fide or has been made for a collateral purpose and therefore outside the statute. And Lastly, it has been very forcefully urged that the Petitioner having not been given any notice the impugned order which vitally affects the Petitioner's right as a Co -opted member of the Panchayat deserves to be quashed being violative the well -known rule of natural justice.