LACHHMAN Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The material facts leading to the institution of this writ petition are, in brief, as under :-

(2.) The election of Gram Panchayat, Sega, was held in December, 1971 and seven Panches, including the petitioner, had been then elected. Thereafter, the Panches elected the petitioner as Sarpanch. On a complaint alleged to have been made by four Panches against the petitioner, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Kaithal (hereinafter called the B.D.P.O.), Respondent 2, held an inquiry and forwarded the report to the Director of Panchayats. Thereupon, the Director of Panchayats accorded permission to call an extraordinary general meeting to pass no-confidence motion against the petitioner and authorised the B.D.P.O. to call such a meeting. The B.D.P.O. (Respondent 2), therefore, issued notice for holding extraordinary general meeting of the Gram Panchayat for considering the vote of no-confidence to be passed against the petitioner, on March 26, 1974. The petitioner, thereupon, instituted a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kaithal, for perpetual injunction restraining the holding of such a meeting. Along with the suit he moved an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, for ad interim injunction and the same was granted to him on March 25, 1974. It was for that reason that the aforesaid meeting for considering the vote of no-confidence to be moved against the petitioner could not be held on March 26, 1974. The ad interim injunction, referred to above, was vacated by the Subordinate Judge on September 9, 1974. Thereupon, the B.D.O.P. (Respondent 2) issued notice (hereinafter called the impugned notice) on October 16, 1974, for convening extraordinary general meeting of the Gram Panchayat on November 4, 1974, for considering vote of no-confidence to be moved against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner made this petition for writ of certiorari or any order or direction quashing the impugned notice, which was impeached being illegal, unjust and void on the grounds (1) that no inquiry had been held by the B.D.P.O. (Respondent 2) before he submitted the report to the Director of Panchayats and the later had no material on the basis of which the calling of extraordinary general meeting for purposes of considering vote of no-confidence against the petitioner was directed to be held, (2) that the petitioner had not been associated with any such inquiry, (3) that the Director of Panchayats had given permission for holding the extraordinary general meeting on March 26, 1974 but had not given any such permission for holding that meeting on November 4, 1974, and (4) that no meeting for considering the vote of no confidence to be moved against the petitioner could be held on November 4, 1974 since no such meeting had been held on March 26, 1974. Five Panches have opposed the writ petition and Bhalla Ram has sworn affidavit by way of return on behalf of the said five Panches.

(3.) The broad facts, that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch in the month of December, 1971, that on a complaint made by five Panches according to the contesting Panches, and four Panches according to the petitioner, the B.D.P.O. had held an inquiry and recommended the case to the Director of Panchayats for granting permission to hold extraordinary general meeting for considering the no-confidence motion to be moved against the petitioner and the Director of Panchayats had duly accorded the permission for holding such a meeting; that initially the B.D.P.O. had issued notice that such an extraordinary general meeting would be held on March 26, 1974, but the same could not be held because the petitioner had instituted a suit and therein he had obtained ad interim injunction, restraining the holding of such a meeting, and that when the ad interim injunction, referred to above, was vacated on September 9, 1974, the B.D.P.O. had issued notice on October 16, 1974, for convening extraordinary general meeting on November 4, 1974, for purposes of considering the vote of no-confidence to be moved against the petitioner, are admitted.