JAIKISHAN Vs. COLLECTOR GANGANAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application of Jai Kishen, who was nominated as a chairman of the nyaya Panchayat, Thande-wala by the Collector, Ganganagar, under Section 27-C (6) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act presents an important question of law namely whether a member once appointed as Chairman of the Nyaya Panchayat by the collector can subsequently be removed by him or not. In the instant case, petitioner was appointed as Chairman on 27th May, 1961 but later on it was ordered by the Collector that a Chairman may be elected by the Nyaya Panchayat as a result of which respondent No. 3 Satpaul Singh was declared duly elected on 30th October, 1961. It is under these circumstances that the present writ application has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to quash the proceedings taken for electing the chairman of the Nyaya Panchayat and the Government may be restrained from removing him (the petition) from the office of Chairman of the said Nyaya panchayat.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the question in its right perspective, it will be convenient to mention the relevant facts that have given rise to this situation. It is alleged that after the general election of the Panchayats in 1960, the Nyaya Panchayat, of thandewala was constituted on 17th February, 1961 and thereafter a meeting of the members of the Nyaya Panchayat was called by the Collector on 25th february, 1961 to elect its Chairman, but somehow that meeting did not take place on the appointed date and the Chairman could, not, therefore, be elected by the members of the Nyaya Panchayat. It is stated that on May 27, 1961 the collector nominated the peti- tioner as the Chairman of the said Nyaya Panchayat and the oath of office was also administered to him on 31st May, 1961. On 16th october, 1961 it is alleged that the Collector issued a notice calling the meeting of the members of Nyaya Panchayat to elect its Chairman and consequently non-petitioner No. 3 was declared elected as Chairman of the said Nyaya Panchayat on 30th October, 1961. It is on account of this election that the Petitioner felt aggrieved and therefore he has challenged the election of non-petitioner No. 3.

(3.) IT may be mentioned that the petitioner has not disclosed the circumstances and the reasons as to why the meeting of the Nyaya Panchayat, which was called on 25th February, 1961, could not be held. When this case came up for hearing on 4th September, 1963 the Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to furnish the circumstances under which the members of the Nyaya Panchayat failed to elect their Chairman, but these facts have not been placed on record in spite of the order of the Court, but during the course of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner however disclosed that the officer appointed by the Collector to conduct the meeting of the Nyaya Panchayat to elect the Chairman on 25th february, 1961 could not reach the place of meeting and, therefore, the meeting could not be held on the appointed date. He has further admitted that after 25th february no attempt was, however, made by the Collector to call the meeting till 30th October, 1961 when the Nyaya Panchayat elected Respondent No. 3 as its chairman.