GOKULCHAND Vs. CHIEF PANCHAYAT OFFICER RAJASTHAN JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for writ by Gokulchand, Sar Panch of village. Panchayat Gangani, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur, under Art. 226, of the Constitution and raises an interesting question as to the interpretation of sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (No. XXI) of 1953 (hereinafter called the Act ). Learned counsel for both patties are agreed that the point is not covered by authority of this or any other Court.

(2.) IT is necessary to state a few facts in order to appreciate the point in controversy. IT is common ground between the parties that under Sec. 4 of the Act, this Panchayat consists of 10 members including the Sar Panch. The elections to this Panchayat were last held on the 17th December, 1959, as a result of which the petitioner was elected as Sar Panch and opposite parties Nos. 2 to 8 as Panchas. IT is also not in dispute that. village Sewki constituted a part of this Panchayat and two Panchas were to be returned by it but the inhabitants of this village refused to go to the polls, for reasons which are not material for our purposes, so that two out of the ten seats assigned to this Panchayat have remained vacant. IT then appears that the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 8 passed a vote of no-confidence against the petitioner on the 26th March, 1959. On the 28th March, 1959, the District Panchayat Officer informed the Sar Panch, vide annexure 2, that the resolution passed against him was invalid as it had not been passed by the requisite three-forths majority which apparently, according to this officer, should have consisted of 8 members out of the total strength of the Panchayat being 10. The Panchas then reported the matter to the Chief Panchayat Officer on the 20th April, 1959 (annexure 3 ). The Chief Panchayat Officer held that the vote of no-confidence passed by the opposite parties aforesaid against the petitioner was valid, and, therefore, he proceeded to direct him to vacate. his office. A fresh election of Sar Panch was also ordered. This led to the filing of the present writ petition by the petitioner in this Court on the 4th May, 1959. By an interim order of this court dated the 6th May, 1959, this fresh election was postponed. IT is in these circumstances that the question of the correct interpretation of sec. 19 of the Act which governs the matter has arisen.

(3.) AGAIN it seems to me that the emphasis is on the total number of Panchas, and as I look at the matter, the total number of Panchas of a Panchayat can only be a certain number, that number being fixed for it by the Government. In other words, this is the number not exclusive but inclusive of the vacancies on a certain Panchayat at a given time. Lex me illustrate this by a simple example. Suppose the strength of a Panchayat is 16, the maximum which can be prescribed under the Act. Suppose again that out of these 16 persons some may have been disqualified and some others may have resigned or had died so that the actual number of members functioning on this Panchayat may be 8. Let us further suppose that a motion of no confidence is passed by six out of these eight members who alone are functioning at the time. Now, on the interpretation sought to be put by the learned Deputy Government Advocate, such a resolution would be in perfect compliance with the requirements of sec. 19 (2 ). Speaking for myself, I can see no wholesome or beneficial purpose being served by such an interpretation for the very important reason that a Sarpanch who was elected to his office by a majority of all the voters of the entire Panchayat would stand to be deprived of his office by a handful of Panchas who do not represent the vast majority of voters who originally elected him to that office. Such a result does not commend itself to me and I am not prepared to hold that by the language of the legislature as used in this section it was ever its intention to do anything of the kind. I should also like to add that if that is what the legislature meant, it could have certainly used appropriate language to express that intention and which it should not have been difficult for it to choose. Thus, e. g. , the legislature in its wisdom might well have said that the motion of no-confidence to be successful must be carried by majority of not less than 3/4th of the number of Panchas present and voting, or of not less than 3/4ths of the number of Panchas functioning or capable of functioning as such for the time being. That is, however, not the language employed in sub-section (2) of sec. 19, and, therefore, on a balance of all the relevant considerations, the view that I feel persuaded to accept is that the phrase "3/4th of the total number of Panchas" means 3/4ths of the total number of Panchas prescribed under sec. 4 of the Act. I hold accordingly. I may add, however, that if the intention of the Legislature is any other than the one which the plain language of the section bears, then it is for the Legislature, to express its intention clearly by a suitable amendment of the section as it stands at present so as to carry out the desired intention.