PHUL KALI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Phool Kali petitioner, an elected primary member of the Panchayat Samiti, Jhajjar Block, has impugned the co-option of respondents No. 14 to 18 carried through in the meeting of the primary members, held on 25.1.1985, on the ground that there was no clear three days' notice to the primary members. It is alleged in the petition that 19 primary members were summoned to meet on 19.1.1985 for co-opting five members, four from Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and one woman, to the Samiti. On that day, quorum not being complete, the meeting was adjourned by Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Jhajjar, respondent No. 2, who presided over the meeting. On 25.1.1985, respondents No. 14 to 18 were co-opted. For this meeting, notice by the petitioner and some other members of her group was allegedly received only on 23.1.1985 and thus there was no clear notice of statutory period.

(2.) Two separate written statements have been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, and 4, 6 to 13. Official respondents have taken the stand that all the members had been served on 21.1.1985 and their signatures were obtained on a sheet of paper in token of the acceptance of the notices. To these, the petitioner had filed a replication reiterating her relevant, assertions in the writ petition and also filed a copy of the letter sent by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer (Jhajjar), Rohtak to the Deputy Commissioner respondent No. 1, in response to his letter dated 14.2.1985, wherein it was mentioned that it was on 22.1.1985 that he had received a direction from the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) that a meeting for co-option was fixed for 25.1.1985 and that notices on the members of the Samiti be got served. He accordingly through Ram Singh peon got the notices served on 23.1.1985 by affixation at their houses.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, two preliminary objections have been raised at the time of arguments : (i) that the petitioner ought to have resorted to the statutory remedy of election-petition and, (ii) that, even if it is assumed that three days' clear notice was not given to the members, the petitioner cannot succeed unless it is established that, as a result of short notice, prejudice has been caused to her.