RAMU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is 3 petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Ramu who was Sarpanch of the Bagawas Gram Panchayat challenging the validity of a motion of no-confidence which was passed against him at a special meeting of the Panchayat held on 22. 10. 61. The petition has been contested on behalf of respondents Nos. 4-9, 11, 14 and 15.

(2.) THE relevant facts are these. On 18. 9. 61 Durgalal respondent No. 5 delivered notice of a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner to the Collector as required by rule 14 (1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (herein after referred to as the Rules ). On receipt of this notice the Collector called a special meeting of the Panchayat for the consideration of the motion at the office of the Panchayat on 8. 10. 61 and appointed the Tehsildar to preside over it. One Smt. Kamla Devi who was co-opted as a member of the Panchayat under sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) accepted service under the Panchayat Samiti as a Gram Kaki after her co-option. When a meeting to consider the no-confidence morion was called Smt. Kamla Devi tendered her resignation from the po;t of the Gram Kaki to the Panchayat Samiti on 1. 10. 61. This was presumably done as the petitioner had moved the Collector and the Minister for Panchayats for removing her from the membership of the Panchayat. This resignation had not been accepted by 8. 10. 61. It was accepted by the Panchayat Samiti on 12. 10. 61. THE Collector sent an order cancelling his previous order fixing the special meeting for 8. 10. 61 with the result that the meeting fixed for 8. 10. 61 was not held although the Tehsildar came to Bagawas on that date to preside over it. THE Collector passed orders calling the special meeting for 22. 10. 61. It is alleged by the petitioner that this was done by the Collector in order to enable Smt. Kamla Devi to vote for the no-confidence motion. This allegation was denied by the contesting respondents who made a counter allegation that the meeting fixed for 8. 10. 61 was cancelled at the instance of the petitioner himself. THEre is nothing to support the allegation made by the petitioner in this behalf except his own assertion. He admitted that the order cancelling the meeting was brought by himself from the Collet tor and was served on the Tehsildar. This rather goes to support the allegation made by the contesting respondents that it was the petitioner who got the meeting fixed for 8. 10. 61, cancelled. THE allegation of the petitioner appears to be based on the mis-conception that Smt. Kamla Devi could not have voted for the motion if the special meeting had been held on 8. 10. 61. Sec. 17 (b) runs: - "if any Panch, Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch after having been elected or appointed as aforesaid, becomes disqualified during the term of his office for such election or appointment, his seat shall be declared by the State Government, after giving him an opportunity of being heard, to have become vacant. "

(3.) IN my opinion it is clear from the provision contained in sec. 19 (2) that only Panchas can take part in voting on the motion. The Sarpanch is no doubt a member of the Panchayat and he has a right to vote at all the ordinary meetings of the Panchayat. But this is a special meeting for which special procedure has been prescribed under sec. 19. Sub-sec. (2) of this section clearly shows that the vote of the Sarpanch is not to be considered at all in determining whether the motion has been passed. What the words "otherwise to take part in the proceedings of the Panchayat" mean in the case of a Sarpanch is that apart from speaking against the motion he can also raise objections and remain present at the meeting like Panchas. There is no doubt some disparity between the position of the Sarpanch and that of a Up-Sarpanch in relation to a motion of no-confidence against them. A Sarpanch cannot vote against the motion brought against himself as he is not a Panch. But an Up-Sarpanch can vote against the motion, which is brought against him as he is a Panch. The disparity cannot be considered to be unfair considering that the Up-Sarpanch is elected by the Panchas and can be removed by them by a bare majority. The Sarpanch is however elected, not by the Panchas, but by the whole electorate. Although he cannot vote against the no-confidence motion brought against himself he cannot be removed unless 3/4th of the total number of Panchas vote for the no-confidence morion against him. At a special meeting held under sec. 19 the position of a Sarpanch is like that of an associated member of a Panchayat Samiti who has a right to take part in the deliberations of the Samiti, but has no right to vote for or against any motion. This contention also has therefore no force.