RATAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 25. 11. 2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the whole proceedings of No Confidence Motion dtd. 15. 11. 2003 (Annex. 5) taken against the petitioner be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: i) That the petitioner was elected as Up Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat 42 G. B. , Panchayat Samiti Anoopgarh Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, Distt. Sri Ganganagar. ii) Further case of the petitioner is that since elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat 42 G. B. , namely, Harjeet Singh was in judicial custody, therefore, the State Government vide its order dtd. 5. 11. 2003 (Annex. 1) directed the respondent No. 5 (Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Anoopgarh) to hand over the charge of the post of Sarpanch to the petitioner till the release of sarpanch Harjeet Singh from the jail and thereafter the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat 42 G. B. Panchayat Samiti Anoopgarh handed over the charge of the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat 42 G. B. to the petitioner. THE secretary of the Gram Panchayat 42 G. B. after handing over charge of the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat 42 G. B. to the petitioner wrote a letter dtd. Nil (Annex. 2) to the Vikas Adhikari (respondent No. 5 ). iii) Further case of the petitioner is that respondent decided to bring motion of no confidence against the petitioner and in this context the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat 42 G. B. issued the list dtd. 10. 9. 2003 (Annex. 3) of the members i. e. Ward Panchas and Sarpanch which were 10 in number. iv) Further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 (Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar) issued a notice dtd. 28. 10. 2003 (Annex. 4) regarding vote on No Confidence motion to be held on 15. 11. 2003. v) Further case of the petitioner is that the meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence was held on 15. 11. 2003 by the respondents and in the meeting only 6 members out of 10 members were present who cast the vote on Motion of No confidence under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994) and all those six members voted against the petitioner. However, in the meeting the petitioner was not present. vi) Further case of the petitioner is that Sub-Clause 11 of Section 37 of the Act of 1994 clearly prescribes that motion of no confidence is to be carried with the support of 2/3rd of elected members of the concerned Panchayati Raj Institution and therefore, it is necessary that 2/3rd members should be present at the time when the meeting of motion of no confidence was held, but in the present case on 15. 11. 2003 in the meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence, only six members were present which did not amount to required presence of 2/3rd members and therefore the whole proceedings of No Confidence motion were illegal and without jurisdiction and against the settled parameters of law and deserve to be set aside. Copy of proceedings of no confidence motion is marked as Annex. 5. vii) Further case of the petitioner is that he submitted a detailed representation dtd. 17. 11. 2003 (Annex. 6) to the respondent No. 4 (Chief Executive Officer), but to no avail. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer.

(3.) THERE is no dispute on the point as per reply of the respondents themselves that though Sarpanch Harjeet Singh was in judicial custody, but he was not suspended from the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat 42 G. B.