RATTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner along with Respondents 5 to 13 was elected as a Panch to the Gram Panchayat Taksal in the elections held on 27th October, 1972. There were in all 13 Panches who had been elected. The first meeting of the Panchayat was called for 20th November, 1972, for administration of oath to the Panches and also for conducting elections to the offices of Pradhan and Up -Pradhan. On that day 12 Panches were present and oath was administered to them. Petitioner as also Respondent No. 13 were elected as Pradhan and Up -Pradhan respectively. It is averred that some -how oath could not be administered to the Pradhan and Up -Pradhan and this oath was administered only on 19th March, 1974. Since no oath could be administered to the Petitioner and Respondent 13, therefore, the Respondents 5 to 12 elected their own Pradhan and Up -Pradhan in a meeting convened by them. On 16th February, 1974, the rival group, i.e. Respondents 5 to 12 gave a notice of vote of no -confidence against the Petitioner and Respondent 13 and also called for a meeting within 15 days from the issue of the notice. Copies of the notice were sent to the Panchayat Officer, etc. The Panchayat Officer convened a meeting for 19th March, 1974, for administering oath, but a letter, dated 18th March, 1974, was issued by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Solan, acting as Deputy Commissioner, to the Block Development Officer, Dharampur, directing him not to recognise the newly elected Pradhan and Up -Pradhan and further to administer oath to the previously elected Pradhan and Up -Pradhan. Annexure PA is the letter issued by the D.D. & P.O. in continuation of his letter dated 21st February, 1974, whereby he had previously also directed the B.D.O. to administer oath to the Petitioner and Respondent 13. The vote of no -confidence was held to be irregular by the D.D. & P.O. by this very letter, Annexure PA. Thereafter it so happened that Respondents 5 to 12 commenced convening meetings of their own and passed resolutions in the absence of the Petitioner and Respondent 13. The meetings convened by the Petitioner and Respondent 13 were not attended by the Respondents 5 to 12 and they had always been absenting themselves, as is given by the Petitioner in Annexure PG. Respondents 5 to 12 also asked the Petitioner to resign but the latter refused to comply with their wishes. Thereafter Respondents 5 to 12 filed a CWP. 88/74 for a direction to be issued to the Petitioner and Respondent 13 not to interfere in the working of the Panchayat convened by Respondents 5 to 12. Later on that writ petition was withdrawn on 9th April, 1974. After withdrawal of the petition some record which had been taken over from the Petitioner and Respondent 13 was handed over to them. It appears, Respondents 5 to 12 again passed another no -confidence motion on 19th September, 1974 against the Petitioner and Respondent 13 without convening any regular meeting. On the basis of that the Respondent No. 3, i.e. B.D.O. referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, who vide order, Annexure PD, dated 3rd October, 1974, authorised the B.D.O. to take over charge from the Petitioner and Respondent 13 and it is how the Petitioner has moved this petition under Article 226 for quashing the order, Annexure PD. He has also prayed that a direction be issued to Respondents 1 to 3 to recognise him and Respondent 13 as Pradhan and Up -Pradhan with a further prayer to restrain Respondents 5 to 12 from interfering with the functioning by the Petitioner and Respondent 13 as Pradhan and Up -Pradhan. Further, he has prayed that a mandamus be issued to the Respondents 1 to 3 to take action against Respondents 5 to 12 for absenting themselves from the meeting of the Panchayat convened by the Petitioner as Pradhan.

(2.) This writ petition was admitted on 11th October, 1974. It is apparent from the order that the learned Advocate -General accepted notice for Respondents 1 to 3 and he prayed for and was allowed time upto 29th October, 1974, for filing return to the writ petition. The last portion of the order which is relevant for the present purposes was that the writ petition and the miscellaneous petition will be listed for hearing on 6th November, 1974. It appears that return to the main petition as also reply to the CMP were filed on 1st November, 1974, without any application having been filed for condonation of the delay in filing the return, which admittedly were filed after the time allowed by the Court. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued the case but the Advocate General was not present. Since there was no application for condonation of delay nor the same had been condoned, therefore, this reply filed to the main petition as also to the CMP shall be ignored.

(3.) The point for consideration in this petition is whether this order, Annexure PD, passed by Respondent No. 2 is a legal and a valid order. In order to determine this point it is necessary to consider whether this no -confidence motion passed by the other Panches could validly be done or not. If the reply to this is in the negative then it would necessarily follow that the order passed by Respondent No. 2 is null and void and is liable to be set aside.