HARDATT SINGH Vs. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Out of the 7 members who originally constituted the Gram Panchayat of village Neela Heri, 2 had died leaving the Pancnayat to be constituted by the remaining five. A vote of no-confidence was passed against the petitioner who was the Sarpanch of the said Panchayat in an extraordinary general meeting of the Panchayat held on March 20, 1975, by a majority of 3 to 2- The no- confidence resolution passed in that meeting was, however, set aside by a Division Bench of this Court (R.N. Mittal and Bains, JJ.) on May 16, 1975, white allowing the present petitioner's Civil Writ Petition No. 2234 of 1975. It is the common case of both sides that the only ground on which that petition was allowed and the resolution of no-confidence, dated March 20, 1975, was annulled was that the meeting in question had been presided over by one of the Panches and not by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer or any other officer authorised by him. After the decision of the Division Bench in the previous writ petition, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer respondent No. 1, issued a fresh notice, dated May 21, 1975, convening a fresh extraordinary general meeting of the Gram Panchayat for May 28, 1975. In that meeting again the vote of no-confidence against the petitioner was passed by a majority of 3 to 2. Copy of the resolution passed at that meeting is An-nexure P. 1.

(2.) The validity and legality of the second meeting hold on May 28, 1975, has now been impugned in the present petition before us on four grounds, namely:-

(3.) The first two points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner appear to us to be based on a misconception of the legal position. The no-confidence motion was sought to be introduced against the petitioner. The Director granted his previous permission for the consideration of the motion-It is only the meeting, dated March 20, 1975, in which the motion was considered that has been held to be illegal by the order of this Court in the petitioner's earlier writ petition. The resultant legal position is that the meeting, dated March 20, 1975, is deemed to have never been held as the purported meeting was no meeting in the eye of law, as it had not been held strictly in conformity with the statutory requirements of the Act and the Rules. This being so, the proposed resolution is deemed in law not to have been considered at all by the panches and they had no legal opportunity to vote for or against it till the present meeting, dated May 28, 1975, was held. The previous permission granted by the Director would lapse only if and after the no-confidence motion is considered in a legally held meeting and it is either passed or defeated. Such a meeting was held for the first time on May 28, 1975. For the same reason it cannot be argued successfully that the no-confidence motion had "not been passed" in the earlier meeting which was held within one year of the present meeting, as in the eye of law there was no earlier meeting. Contentions Nos. .1 and 2 of the learned counsel for the petitioner are, in this view of the matter, devoid of merit and are repelled.