SADA NAND Vs. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are seven members of Gram Panchayat of village Asiaki Gorawas, tehsil Rewari, district Mohindergarh. They were elected in the year 1971 immediately after the election of the Sarpanch of the Panchayat was held in which Shri Sher Singh respondent No. 3 was duly elected. It is alleged in the petition that this Sher Singh started misbehaving and incurred the displeasure of a majority of the Panches. Accordingly four petitioners moved an application on 4th September, 1972 before the Director of Panchayats, Haryana, respondent No. 1, for permission to hold a general meeting of the Panchayat so that they may be able to pass a vote of no-confidence against the Sarpanch. It would be useful to mention at this place that this petition was made more than one and a half years after the election of the Sarpanch. This petition was marked by the Director of Panchayats to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer for report. According to the petitioners, this Officer was under the influence of respondent No. 3 and he called the petitioners to his office on 9th of October, 1972, to record their statements to verify the correctness of the allegations made in their petition. They appeared before him and stated in clear terms that they had no confidence in the Sarpanch. The said Officer wanted their individual statements to be recorded. The petitioners insisted that their statements be written in their presence and read over to them. According to them, this course was not acceptable to this Officer. On 30th of October, 1972, the petitioners made complaints of misbehaviour against respondent No. 2 to the Deputy Commissioner and requested him to appoint another Officer to record their statements. The Deputy Commissioner did not take any action in the matter. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Director of Panchayats who gave them dasti orders addressed to the District Development and Panchayat Officer for recording their statements. It is alleged that they approached this Officer on a number of occasions but he declined to record their statements. On 22nd of November, 1972, the petitioners again wrote to respondent No. 1 alleging that the subordinate Officers were not taking cognizance of the matter in an independent manner and prayed that they should be allowed to hold a meeting. No action was taken by respondent No. 1 on this application. Thereafter, the petitioners waited upon the Minister incharge of the Development portfolio who also advised them to allow Shri Sher Singh respondent No. 3 to continue as a Sarpanch. Since the petitioners could not get any relief, they filed the instant petition praying that a writ of mandamus be issued to the Director of Panchayats, Haryana, for according them the permission to pass a vote of no-confidence in a general meeting of the Panchayat. In the return filed on behalf of the respondents, Shri Shyam Chand, Development Minister, Haryana, has denied the material allegations. So, no finding regarding the bias alleged against him can be given. Respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit in which it has been stated that the petitioners did not co-operate with the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Pataudi, when he wanted to record their statements separately to verify the correctness of the allegations contained in their application dated 4th of September, 1972. She also denied the allegations regarding mala fides and has stated that if the petitioners had co-operated in the inquiry the requisite permission would have been granted to them. In para 13 of her return, she has stated as follows :

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. Section 9(2) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act as applicable to Haryana lays down that the Sarpanch and Panches shall hold office for a period of five years. There are a number of provisos to this Section. The effect of those provisos which are relevant for the present petition may be summarised thus-'No-confidence motion cannot be moved within a period of six months from the date of the election of the Sarpanch. Even after this period such a motion can only be moved with the permission of the Director. If such a motion fails then another motion cannot be moved within a period of six months from the date when the earlier motion failed.' The statute does not contain any provision to the effect that the Director of Panchayats would be entitled to withhold this permission if he is of the view that the motion of no-confidence would not be in the general interest of the Panchayat. Consequently, the very basis on which respondent No. 1 considered this matter is against the provisions of law. The Sarpanch has to be elected by his fellow-panches. Subject to the other provisions of the Act, he should be allowed to hold office so long as he continues to enjoy the confidence of the Panches. When the statute talks of the permission to be given by the Director, it only means that the Director should satisfy about the conditions mentioned in the provisos to Section 9 regarding time limit and the other conditions under which such a motion can be moved. The facts of this case speak for themselves. All the four petitioners made a written representation for the accord of permission to move a no-confidence motion. All of them appeared before the Block Development and Panchayat Officer and the District Development and Panchayat Officer. They also approached the Director on many occasions.

(3.) Instead of dilating further on this point, I would observe that those who are concerned with administering democratic institutions like the Gram Panchayats are not supposed to help those who want to remain in office even though they do not enjoy the confidence of their constituents. The procedure adopted by the authorities in this case was wholly irregular. Under the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that all the four petitioners genuinely wanted to move a no-confidence motion against Shri Sher Singh respondent No. 3 and the Director of Panchayats did not properly perform her statutory duty in not granting the permission to them.