ANCHI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch from Panchayat Circle Katar Choti. The Gram Panchayat has brought a vote of no-confidence against the Sarpanch. The grievance of the petitioner is that Section 37 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act which permits the Panchayat to oust the Sarpanch by means of a no- confidence motion is violative of the principle of democracy as Sarpanch is elected directly by the electorate and he is not elected by the elected panchas, In (1) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3031 of 1989, decided on 08.09.1989, similar grievance as has been raised in the instant petition was raised with regard to Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. In that case, the Division Bench of this Court negatived the challenge. While rejecting the challenge, it was held as follows :

(2.) The Supreme Court in (2) Ram Beti etc. etc. Vs. District Panchayat Rajadhikari and Others, AIR 1998 SC 1222, also considered the same question. In that case, Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (26 of 1947) was challenged on the ground that it empowered the members of the Gram Panchayat to remove the Pradhan of a Gram Sabha by moving a motion of no-confidence though he was directly elected as Pradhan by the electorate. It was submitted that the provision was unconstitutional being violative of the concept of democracy. The Supreme Court rejected the challenge and held that the provision was not unreasonable and was not hit by Article 14. It also observed that under Section 14 of the Act the power of removal of a Pradhan is conferred on the members of the Gram Panchayat which is a smaller body than the Gram Sabha but the members of the Gram Panchayat, having been elected the members of the Gram Sabha, represent the same electorate which has elected the Pradhan. The removal of a Pradhan by two-thirds members of the Gram Panchayat who are also elected representatives of the members of the Gram Sabha is, in fact, removal by the members of the Gram Sabha through their representatives.

(3.) In (3) Mohanlal Tripathi Vs. District Magistrate, Rai Bareilly, AIR 1993 SC 2042, where the question of removal of the President of the Municipal Board by a vote of no-confidence under the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 was involved, the Supreme Court held that a person removed from the office of the President for loss of confidence by the Members of the Board is in the very nature of recall by the electorate themselves. Under the U.P. Municipalities Act, the President is directly elected by the electorate and his removal is possible by bringing a vote of no-confidence by the members of the Board. It was in this context that the Supreme Court held that the removal from the office of the President for loss of confidence can be made by the Board which is elected representative of the electorate and accountable to it.