RAJINDER SINGH Vs. DY COMMR GURGAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Rajinder Singh was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Gurgaon, and was later on elected as one of the Primary Members of the Panchayat Samiti, Gurgaon. The Primary Members of the Panchayat Samiti were summoned into a meeting for January 19, 1985 for co-opting two women members and four scheduled castes members to the Samiti. On January 9, 1985 a notification was said to have been issued by the Government whereby some area of the Gram Sabha, Gurgaon, was included in the Municipal Committee, Gurgaon. On the strength of the said notification Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, issued a letter to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Gurgaon, on January 10, 1985, informing him that petitioner Rajinder Singh cannot take part in Samiti-meeting scheduled for January 19, 1985 because vide notification dated January 9, 1985 the area of the Gram Panchayat, Gurgaon, stood included in the Municipal Committee, Gurgaon. The petitioner filed the present writ petition No. 255 of 1985 challenging the aforesaid direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, inter alia, asserting that the notification dated January 9,1985 had not been published in the Haryana Government Gazette on January 9, 1985, and therefore, it did not take effect and hence no area of Gram Sabha, Gurgaon, stood included in the Municipal Committee, Gurgaon.

(2.) In the reply to the said petition filed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer it was, inter alia, asserted that in fact the notification had been published on January 9, 1985. In that reply it was also further asserted that the whole of the Sabha area of Gram Panchayat, Gurgaon, had been included in the Municipal Committee, Gurgaon. The said notification, however, was in fact published in the Government Gazette only on February 19, 1985. When it was brought to the notice of the Court that a wrong assertion that the notification had been published on January 9, 1985 was made in the written statement when in fact the Government published the notification on February 19, 1985, a suo motu contempt notice was issued to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. However, the petition was later on dismissed as infructuous vide order dated February 25, 1985 because of the fact that the notification having been published on February 19, 1985 allegedly including the entire Sabha area of Gram Panchayat, Gurgaon, in the Municipal Committee, Gurgaon, as a result whereof the Gram Panchayat stood dissolved and the petitioner consequently ceased to be a member of the Panchayat Samiti.

(3.) The petitioner has moved the present application Civil Misc. No. 670 of 1985 in which prayer is made to recall the order dated February 25, 1985, dismissing the writ petition as infructuous and for allowing the petition. It is asserted in this application that in fact even the assertion in the affidavit of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer that the entire Sabha area had been included in the Municipal Committee, Gurgaon, was false, and that in fact the notification published on February 19, 1985, leaves out part of the Sabha area. Reply to this assertion is made in affidavit filed on May 16, 1985. The relevant portion of para 7 whereof reads as under :-