RAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that petitioner Ram Chand was elected as a Panch of the Gram Panchayat, Rohat, Tehsil Sonepat, District Rohtak. He further contested the election of the office of Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat and was elected as such in December, 1971. The Gram Panchayat Rohat is constituted of 8 Panches. It is alleged that Badlu Ram (Respondent No. 3), who is working as a Gram Sachiv, in collusion with Lakhi Ram (Respondent No. 5), who lost the election to the office of Sarpanch as against the petitioner, manoeuvred with the help of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer that certain members of the Gram Panchayat belonging to the group of the petitioner, should go out of the fold of the petitioner, so that the petitioner should be ousted from the office of the Sarpanch. It is alleged that the said Gram Sachiv and respondent Lakhi Ram succeeded in this design and thus a meeting was convened on 7.8.1972 for considering and passing the motion of no-confidence against, the petitioner from the office of the Sarpanch. It is alleged in the petition that five Panches out of eight, that is, respondent Nos. 5 to 9, attended the said meeting and the remaining three, including the petitioner, did not attend the said meeting. This meeting of the Gram Panchayat is being challenged on the ground that according to the provisions of Section 9 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 , as amended by Section 6 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1971 (Haryana Act 19 of 1971), the permission of the Director was necessary for convening such a meeting and since no permission was obtained from the Director of Panchayats, Haryana, therefore, this meeting was illegal. It is alleged that another meeting was held on 25.8.1972 which meeting was also attended by five Panches and in the said meeting Lakhi Ram (Respondent No. 5) was elected as a Sarpanch in place of the petitioner. The election of Lakhi Ram respondent as Sarpanch is being challenged on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 9 of the principal Act as amended by Section 6 of Haryana Act 19 of 1971, no approval to the resolution of no-confidence against the petitioner was given by the Director of Panchayats and, therefore, the petitioner still continued as Sarpanch and thus there was no vacancy which could be filled by electing as new Sarpanch, that is respondent No. 5. It is, therefore, pleaded that the election of respondent No. 5 as Sarpanch is also illegal. In the written statement filed on behalf of Jeet Singh Verma. Block Development and Panchayat Officer, the allegations of mala fide levelled against Badlu Ram (Respondent No. 3) and the Block Development and Panchayat Officer were denied. It has, however, been averred that the meeting held on 7.8.1972 for passing no-confidence motion against the petitioner, was convened with the permission of the Director of Panchayats and for that purpose, reliance is being placed on Annexure 'R-1' which is a letter conveying sanction for convening the extraordinary meeting for considering the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. It is further pleaded that Lakhi Ram (Respondent No. 5) was rightly elected in accordance with law as the second meeting was convened by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer under rules 38 and 39 of the Gram Panchayat Election Rules, 1971. It is nowhere pleaded in the return that the Director of Panchayats even gave his approval to the no-confidence motion passed against the petitioner in the meeting held on 7.8.1972.

(2.) As regards the allegations of the petitioner that Badlu Ram (Respondent No. 3) was instrumental in winning over some of the Panches, who were originally in the group of the petitioner, and, therefore, no-confidence motion passed against the petitioner is invalid, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this contention. It is difficult for this Court to go into this aspect of the case in these proceedings. It is not possible to determine as to what impelled the members of the Panchayat, who previously supported the petitioner, to vote against the petitioner in no-confidence motion. It is open to any Panch to cast his vote to one candidate or to the other. Nobody can question him about the reasons for casting his vote in the manner he likes. In fact, the weakness of this argument was realized by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments, therefore, he did not press the point any further.

(3.) In order to pronounce upon the validity of the meeting held on 7.8.1972 and 25.8.1972, reference may be made to Section 9 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 , as amended by the Haryana Legislature up to date, which is reproduced below :-