SADHU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Shyampur, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, in September 1983. Vide order dated 12.12.1986 respondent No. 3 notified the cessation of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch (copy Annexure P-2), for not holding the general meeting of the Gram Sabha, Shyampur, of Hari and Sawani. The petitioner filed appeal in the Court of Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh, under section 12(1-B) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (for short called 'the Act') against the order dated 12.12.1986 pased by respondent No. 2, which was rejected on 24.8.1987 (Annexure P-4). Against the said orders of cessation of office of Sarpanch and the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said orders and also the vires of section 12(1-A) of the Act.

(2.) So far as the Constitutional validity of the provisions is concerned it may be seen that no foundation has been laid for challenging the provision. The Legislature in its wisdom has provided certain consequences in case the Sarpanch fails to convene two general meetings. There is a purpose behind the provision. The purpose is to keep and control on the activities of the Gram Panchayat in particular and the Sarpanch who is the chief functionary to manage the affair is to the Panchayat in general. There is no claim in the petition that this is a colourable exercise of power by the Legislature. Apart from this it may be seem that all elected offices if not attended to lead to the consequence that the member concerned ceases to be a member. In this regard there is a provision in the Constitution itself which provides for vacation of (sic) in the event of a member failing to attend the meetings of the house for a particular number of days.

(3.) Under Article 101 of the Constitution of India a Member of the Parliament is to vacate his seat if for a period of sixty days he is absent from the house without the permission of the house. Similar provision is contained in Article 190 of the Constitution which deals with members of the legislative assemblies in the State. Thus when a provision to this effect exists in the Constitution itself the petitioners cannot contend that the provisions of section 12(1-A) are in any way ultra vires of the Constitution of India.