SUDESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The solitary question that arises for consideration in this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution is whether the words "majority of not less than two-thirds of the votes of the members of the Gram Sabha present" would mean two-thirds of the valid votes polled by those present or two-thirds of the members present.

(2.) The undisputed facts in this case lie in a narrow compass and these may first be noticed. Petitioner was elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Daultabad-Telpuri, District Gurgaon in December, 1994. Two-thirds of the Panches of this Gram Panchayat moved a requisition before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Gurgaon who is the Prescribed Authority for convening an extraordinary general meeting of the Gram Sabha for the purpose of removing the Sarpanch by passing a 'no confidence motion' against her. Since the meeting was not convened, the requisitionists filed Civil Writ Petition 19462 of 1996 in this Court which was allowed by a Division Bench on 13-5-1997 and a direction issued to the Prescribed Authority to convene the meeting. In pursuance to the directions, a meeting of the Gram Sabha was held on 13-8-1997 which was attended by 741 members. The 'no confidence motion' moved by the Panchas was put to vote and the members who were present were asked to cast their votes through a secret ballot. The result as declared by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) is as under :-(i) Number of votes cast against the 'no confidence motion'= 214(ii) Number of votes cast in favour of the motion= 428(iii) Number of invalid votes = 99Total votes polled = 741The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil declared that the 'no confidence motion' was carried against the Sarpanch by the requisite majority and she stood removed from the office. Proceedings were accordingly recorded in the proceeding Book of the Gram Panchayat. It is against this removal that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming that she was wrongly removed from office as, according to the result, the 'no confidence motion' was not carried by a majority of not less than two thirds of the votes of the members of the Gram Sabha present at the extraordinary general meeting. The claim of the petitioner is controverted by the respondents and it is contended that the motion was carried against the petitioner by the requisite majority.

(3.) Section 10 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short the Act) prescribes the term of office of a Sarpanch and also the manner in which a Sarpanch and Up-Sarpanch can be removed from their office. the relevant part of this section reads as under :-