KIRORIRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that respondents No. 1 to 4 be restrained from interfering in the functioning of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Mehmadpura Panchayat, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur. It is also prayed that the resolution passed by the Panchayat on 7th October, 1959 be declared null and void.

(2.) THE case set out in the petition is that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the said Panchayat and was functioning as such. Shri Banney Singh, respondent No. 4 was the Up-sarpanch and he along with seven other Panchas sent a no confidence notice to the petitioner on 8th September, 1959. It was received by him on 14th September,1959. THE petitioner called a meeting of the Panchayat on 28th September, 1959 to consider the aforesaid motion of no-confidence and the notice of the calling of the meeting was given to all the Panchas. On that day only three Panchas attended the meeting and the meeting was presided over by Tikam Singh Panch. THE no-confidence motion was put to vote and was lost. In spite of this, respondent No. 3 who is District Inspector of Panchayats, Bharatpur, held a meeting of the Panchayat on 7th October, 1959 and it is alleged that a resolution expressing no-confidence in the petitioner was pissed by eight members present on that day.

(3.) THUS, it is only in the absence of a Sarpanch that an Up-sarpanch can perform the functions and exercise the powers of a Sarpanch, which power includes the power of convening the meeting of a Panchayat. Absence of the Sarpanch in common parlance signifies that the Sarpanch is not physically present, but in the context in which it has been used in sec. 16 (2) (11), it has wider connotation. Even when the office of Sarpanch is vacant, it is taken to mean under it that the Sarpanch is absent. This means that absence of Sarpanch under sec. 16 (2) (11) is taken to include the case where there is no Sarpanch. Does it also include the case where the Sarpanch refuses to perform his statutory duties or does not perform them within the time prescribed? In my humble opinion such cases must fall within sec. 16 (2) (11) to enable the Up-sarpanch to act, otherwise there shall remain a void which, it must be admitted, would hamper the proper functioning of the Panchayat. It should not be forgotten that under Article 40 of the Constitution it is the duty of the State to take steps to organise village Panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government. The Rajasthan Panchayat Act was enacted in performance of that solemn duty towards the people of the State. The Act is not to be construed in any narrow and pedantic sense. Panchayat being a self-governing unit, democratic in its constitution, its proper functioning is to be assured and promoted by construing the Act in a liberal manner, if need be. Non-performance of duties by the Sarpanch should not be permitted to create a void. When the Sarpanch refuses to perform them intentionally even when he has been directed to do so by the law, he must be taken to be absent. Absence of Sarpanch means his absence from duty whether it may be due to his physical absence or his refusal or unwillingness to act or his incapacity to act. An illustration of the last occurs in case of presiding over the meeting of no-confidence. Under sec. 19 (4) the Sarpanch is permitted to be present and to take part in the proceeding in a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a resolution of no-confidence relating to him. If sec. 16 (2) is taken to be limited to the case of physical absence, the Up-sarpanch cannot preside over such a meeting if the Sarpanch is present in it. It would be extremely ridiculous to hold that view A wider and liberal interpretation to sec. 16 (2) (11) is to be given and absence of Sarpanch must be taken to mean absence from duty and not merely absence in person.