BANSHILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated April 27, 2004 rendered in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1015/2004. The facts leading to the appeal are as follows.

(2.) THE appellant herein was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Karera in January 2000. A written notice of intention to make the motion expressing want of confidence in the Sarpanch, signed by 14 persons out of 21 elected members including the UP- Sarpanch, was presented before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara on 16. 02. 2004 along with a copy of the letter requesting the competent authority to place the proposed motion before the Panchayat for consideration (Annex. P/1 to the writ petition ). On receipt of the written notice, the Chief Executive Officer directed the Additional Chief Executive Officer to submit report with regard to the identity of the persons who had signed and presented the motion. THE Chief Executive Officer by his order dated 20th of February 2004 (Annex. P/3 to the writ petition) convened the meeting of the Gram Panchayat for 4th march at 10 A. M. to consider the No Confidence Motion against the appellant.

(3.) SHRI Chaudhary also submits that the Chief Executive officer was not empowered to delegate his authority to the Additional Chief Executive Officer for verification of the identities of the persons who has signed notice (annex. P/1 ). Before examining the merit of the contention, it needs to be pointed out that there is nothing on record to show that the Additional Chief Executive Officer checked the identity of the persons who were signatories to the aforesaid notice. It appears that the Chief Executive Officer without waiting for the response from the Additional Chief Executive Officer called the meeting for consideration of the No confidence Motion against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the procedure adopted by the Chief Executive Officer falls foul of Section 37 of the Act of 1994. His contention is that the verification ought to have been done by the Chief Executive Officer and he ought not to have delegated the function to the Additional Chief Executive Officer.