DHARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners and respondents 4 to 9 were elected as Panches of village kachhana, tahsil Kaithal, district Kurukshetra, in the elections held in 1971. Petitioner 1 was thereafter elected as Sarpanch in the election held in December, 1971/ January, 1972. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Rajound, called a meeting of the Panches for February 22, 1973, at 11 A. M. to determine as to what was the opinion of the majority of the Panches and for the passing of the resolution on no-confidence against the Sarpanch. It is stated by petitioner 1 that the notice that was served on him mentioned February 23, 1973 as the date of the meeting and not February 22, 1973. He went to the office of the Block development and Panchayat Office, Rajound, on February 23, 1973, and was told hat the meeting had already taken place on February 22, 1973, and the no-confidence motion had been passed against him. He was also told that respondents 4 to 9 were present at that meeting and unanimously voted in favour of the no-confidence motion. The petitioner then tried to obtain the copies and filed this petition challenging his removal from the office of Sarpanch in consequence of the no-confidence motion.

(2.) SEPARATE written statements have been filed by respondent 2, respondent 3 and respondent 4. It has been stated that the notice, copy of which is annexure 'e' to the affidavit of the petitioner dated May 4, 1973, was served on the petitioner by affixation as he refused to accept service. Petitioner 2 accepted service by thumb marking the duplicate of the notice. The service was effected by the Chaukidar of the Panchayat which was attested by the Chaukidar of the village. The petitioners have produced the affidavit of the Chaukidar of the village denying that petitioner no. 1 ever refused to accept service of the notice which was sought to be served by the Chaukidar of the Panchayat. The record has been produced and a purported thumb mark of petitioner 2 is to be found on the duplicate of the notice. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, states that the thumb impression is not of petitioner 2 and that comparison can be made of that thumb impression with his thumb impression on the power of attorney. I am not prepared to act as an expert and since it is a disputed question of fact, I decline to go into the same. I will prefer to base my decision on the presumption that all official acts are regularly done in the discharge of official duties. No reason has been stated why the Chaukidar of the Panchayat was deposing against the petitioners in respect of the service of the notice. I consequently hold that the notice for the meeting to be held on February 22, 1973, was duly served on the petitioners and if they did not attend that meeting, they did so at their own risk.

(3.) IT is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the meeting had not been summoned in accordance with law Section 9 of the Gram panchayat Act, as was in force in the State of Haryana after its amendment effected in 1971, in so far as relevant, reads as under:-