RAM DEO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises in the following circumstances:-

(2.) THE appellant was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Singhrawat, Panchayat Samiti Dhod, District Sikar. Some of the members moved a motion expressing want of confidence in the appellant. On January 29, 2003 the third respondent, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar, convened a meeting of the Gram Panchayat for consideration of the no-confidence motion on February 10, 2003. On February 3, 2003 the State Election Commission declared February 16, 2003 as the date for by- elections for the two vacant seats of the Gram Panchayat Singhrawat. THE appellant feeling aggrieved by the order of the third respondent dated January 29, 2003, filed a writ petition mainly on the ground that since the by-elections were to be held on February 13, 2003 the fixation of date for consideration of the no-confidence motion before February 16, 2003 was an arbitrary act on the part of the third respondent. THE learned single judge on consideration of the matter, dismissed the writ petition. THEreupon the appellant filed the instant appeal. Along with the appeal the appellant moved an application for interim relief. THE Division Bench on July 7, 2004 while admitting the appeal, permitted the appellant to continue to work as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Singhrawat, Panchayat Samiti Dhod, District Sikar. THE matter has now come up before us for final disposal of the appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the by-elections were to be held on February 16, 2003, the third respondent ought to have convened the meeting for consideration of the motion after the result of the by-elections was announced. This argument has no legal foundation to stand on. According to S. 37 clause (11) of the Act, the motion is required to be carried out with the support of not less than two-third of the elected members of the Panchayati Raj Institution. THE sub-section does not say that in case any seat is vacant, the motion cannot be put to voting. According to sub-section (14) of S. 37 of the Act the quorum to constitute a meeting for the consideration of a no- confidence motion against the chairperson or deputy chairperson shall be one-third of the total number of persons entitled to vote thereat. Even this sub-section does not suggest that the house which can consider the no-confidence motion has to be a full house. In case the third respondent would have delayed the calling of the meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion, the other side would have attributed motives to him just as the appellant is now attributed motives to him just as the appellant is now attributing motives to him on the ground that he could have waited for some more time so that the vacant seats could have been filled up. THE appellant has not placed any facts on record to show that the third respondent was harbouring any ill feelings towards him and the fixation of the date by him for consideration of the motion of no-confidence by the Panchayat was motivated by extraneous reasons.