NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question which falls for determination in this writ petition is whether the State Government is competent under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (for short, the Act) to issue a directive to the Collector to stay a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti convened by him to consider a motion of no-confidence against the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti.

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute may be shortly stated here. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Hatheni and a member of the Panchayat Samiti Sewar, District Bharatpur. The non-petitioner, Sri Chand is the Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti Sewar. The petitioner, along with 14 other members of the said Panchayat Samiti, is a signatory to a motion of no-confidence against the Pradhan which was delivered to the Collector, Bharatpur on March 11, 1983. The Collector convened the Panchayat Samiti to meet on May 4, 1983, to consider the said motion. Notices for the meeting like the one received by one of the members and placed on the record as Annexure I, were issued to the members on April 15, 1983. On May 3, 1983, that is just a day before the scheduled date of the meeting, the Collector issued an order (Annexure II) staying the meeting sine die on the ground that the State Government had issued an order, dated May 2, 1983, requiring him to postpone the meeting in that manner. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on July 7, 1983, challenging the validity of the postponement on the ground that the State Government has DO power to interfere and direct the postponement of a meeting convened by the Collector under Section 39 to consider a motion of no- confidence against the Pradhan of a Panchayat Samiti and that therefore the Collector cannot lawfully postpone such a meeting. The petitioner is seeking from the court a writ or direction enjoining the State Government and the Collector Bharatpur to convene a meeting of the Panchayat Samiti Sewar for consideration of the motion of no-confidence against the non-petitioner Sri Chand at the earnest possible time.

(3.) The State Government and the Collector Bharatpur (non-petitioners 1 and 2, respectively) have not cared to file any return in answer to the rule nisi served on them. Sri Chand, non-petitioner 3, alone has filed a written reply in answer to the rule served on him. He has raised two preliminary objections to this writ petition. First, he says that since the petitioner did not serve any prior notice on the non-petitioners 1 and 2 demanding justice from them, the writ petition is not maintainable without demand and denial of justice. Second, it is contended that the order of the Collector dated, April 15, 1983, convening the Panchayat Samiti to meet on May 4, 1983, to consider the no-confidence motion against the Pradhan, is illegal, and that even if his subsequent order postponing the meeting indefinitely is found to be illegal, it cannot be set aside for, by doing so, this Court would, in effect, be restoring the earlier order which, it is contended, is illegal. The non-petitioner is also defending on merits the order of the State Government directing the Collector to postpone the meeting scheduled to be held on May 4, 1983. It is contended that the State Government was perfectly within its jurisdiction and power to issue such a direction to the Collector.