SOHAN SINGH SARPANCH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of Anne-ure P.2 by which the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Mahilpur has called the meeting of the Panches for the purpose of electing an acting Sarpanch on 11-8-1989 at 11.30 a.m. commanding majority. A brief re'sume' of the facts giving rise to the present writ petition is necessary in order to appreciate the question involved.

(2.) In the election of Gram Panchayat Panjaur held in September, 1983 one Ranbir Singh was directly elected Sarpanch of the said Panchayat along with other Panches of the Gram Panchayat to whom notice Anne-ure P.2 has been issued. The aforesaid Ranbir Singh Sarpanch worked as Sarpanch of the Panchayat for a few months. In November 1983, he went abroad. The Gram Panchayat before the going of Ranbir Singh abroad passed a resolution appointing the petitioner as acting Sarpanch who took over the charge of the post and the record as well as the property of the Panchayat. Ever since then he had been working as an acting Sarpanch. It is further the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that Ranbir Singh, the elected Sarpanch, came back to the village and remained there for about three years but never took interest in the affairs of the Panchayat and never asked the petitioner to hand him over the charge nor participated in the meetings of the Panchayat on his return to the village and as such the petitioner continued working as Sarpanch. Ranbir Singh again went abroad. According to the petitioner as has been stated by him in the petition no vacancy of Sarpanch has accrued as is required by S.10(1) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). S.10(1) of the Act is reproduced below, at this stage, for facility of ready reference :

(3.) While issuing notice of motion, the operation of Anne-ure P.2 was stayed. Two separate written-statements to the writ petition have been filed on behalf of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer as well as the members of the Gram Panchayat. In the written statement filed by the Panches, it has been averred therein on a point of fact that the petitioner was not performing the duties of the office of Sarpanch in accordance with the provisions of the Act and, therefore, they have lost confidence in him. They have averred that the petitioner sold away the trees to the e-tent of Rs. 500/- without their consent and without any receipt. According to them the petitioner was not rendering any accounts to them. A copy of the representation filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 to hold the meeting for the election of acting Sarpanch who enjoys majority has been attached with the written filed by respondents No. 2 and 3. It is on the basis of the representation that the meeting has been ordered to be convened as per Anne-ure P.2. Apart from this factual position, it has been urged in the written statement that the petitioner could not be described to be elected Sarpanch as he never took oath of the office as required by S.9(1) of the Act which reads as under :