RATTI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are members of Gram Panchayat Bangaon, tehsil Fatehabad, district Hissar, have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing Notification No. 57622-A published in the Haryana Government Gazette Extra- ordinary on September 17, 1973, copy Annexure 'E' issued by the respondent No. 1, State of Haryana through Secretory to Government Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department, superseding the Gram Panchayat of village Bangaon.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they and respondents Nos. 7 and 8 were elected as members of the Gram Panchayat in the year 1971. Petitioner No. 1 is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners have alleged that they opposed Shri Dalbir Singh now a Deputy Minister in the Central Government in his election for membership of the Parliament in the last general elections as they belonged to the opposition. Ram Lal, the out-going Sarpanch, had not delivered the proper accounts to the new sarpanch and a complaint made by the new Panchayat led to the audit of the Panchayat accounts, which revealed misappropriation of a large sum of money by the ex- Sarpanch. Respondent No. 5, Secretary of the Gram Panchayat was also opposed to the petitioners and did not discharge his duties in a proper manner and his conduct too was reported to the authorities. Resolutions were also passed against respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 9, who is M.L.A. belonging to the ruling party also worked against the interests of the petitioners. Respondent No. 1 issued show-cause notice to the Gram Panchayat Bangaon, vide memo No. P.E. 2-73/49579 dated 9th July, 1973 which is Annexure 'C' to the writ petition, through petitioner No. 1, as its Sarpanch requiring the Gram Panchayat to show-cause why it be not superseded. In the grounds mentioned in the show-cause notice it was stated that no development work had been done by the Panchayat since 1971; that whenever any meeting of the Gram Panchayat was called for the development work the members of the Panchayat attended the meeting but did not sign the proceedings due to which no resolution could be passed and the development work could not be done; that 670 residents of the village out of its population of 1170 had turned against the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat contested the show-cause notice vide reply, copy of which is Annexure 'D' to this petition. Showing a cause against the supersession. The Gram Panchayat made a demand for a regular inquiry in the allegations contained in the show-cause notice. The Gram Panchayat was ultimately superseded vide Notification No. 57622-A dated 17.9.1973, copy of which is Annexure 'E' to the petition. The petitioners have now challenged the supersession on the ground that it was influenced by extraneous consideration and malice and that the two grounds mentioned in Annexure 'E' could not be invoked for the supersession.

(3.) Respondent No. 2, Director of Panchayats, Haryana, filed written statement on its behalf and also on behalf of respondent No. 1. In that the contentions of the petitioner were controverted and it was stressed that the show-cause notice and supersession of the Gram Panchayat were bona fide. The justification for the supersession of the Gram Panchayat was reiterated. Supporting the grounds of supersession which was based on the fact-finding inquiry, it was stated that on 26.4.1973 the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat was auctioned for lease but the petitioners refused to sign the lease deed. On that very day Social Education and Panchayat Officer requested the petitioners to sign the proceedings book but they refused to do so. The respondents set up a case that the petitioners attended the meeting but did not sign the proceeding book because of which the development work could not be done. The refusal to sign the proceeding book on 26.4.1973 was quoted as an instance.