BHOOREKHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks an appropriate order, writ or direction for quashing the proceedings of the meeting dated 24th of April, 1975 and further declaring that no no -confidence motion against him was passed in the said meeting and that the respondents be restrained from interfering in the discharge of his duties as Sarpanch.

(2.) THERE is a Gram Panchayat known as Gram Panchayat of village Kayamser Dhandhoori in District Jhunjhunu having total strength of twelve members. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Panchayat. According to the petitioner the meeting of the said Gram Panchayat hid been taking place at the village Kayamser Dhandhoori. A no -confidence motion against be petitioner was delivered to the concerned Additional District Development Officer herein -after to be referred to as the ADDO with a proposal expressing want of confidence in the petitioner. The said ADDO by his order dated 7th of April, 1975, appointed the Tehsildar Jhunjhunu to preside over the meeting to be held in respect of no confidence motion. Later on the ADDO issued a notice fixing the date for consideration of the no confidence motion as 24th of April, 1975, the Naib Tahsildar Jhunjhunu was acting as Tahsildar Incharge as office of the Tahsildar was lying vacant on account of the transfer of the Tahsildar. On 24th of April, 1975, the Niab Tahsildar (Tahsildar Incharge, Jhunjhunu) held the meeting at a place which according to the petitioner was different from the usual place of meetings of the Panchayat. An objection was raised by the petitioner to the change of venue but the same was turned down by the Tahsildar Incharge and the meeting was held in a room adjacent to Piao. It is alleged that the petitioner did not attend the meeting throughout and that only nine Panchas were present in that meeting and that two of the Panchas, namely, respondents Nos. 6 and 9 were not present in it. The meeting was presided over by the Tahsildar Incharge and the nine Panchas present in the meeting voted for no confidence motion which fact is now disputed by the petitioner. It is further said that the respondents Nos. 6 and 9 bad proceeded to the usual place of venue of the meeting so they could not attend the meeting The petitioner has further alleged that Shri Chatura Ram respondent No. 12 and Malji respondent No. 11 had informed the petitioner that they had actually voted against the no -confidence motion but their votes were wrongly counted by the Presiding Officer for the motion and the petitioner has along with the writ petition submitted their affidavits to that effect. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the no confidence motion and the proceeding? of the meeting in that behalf in his writ petition mainly on two grounds:

(3.) A joint reply has also been filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan the ADDO Jhunjhunu and the Naib Tahsildar cum Officiating Tahsirdar Jhunjhunu. While traversing the allegations of the petitioner in regard to the, change of venue, the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have further stated that the meeting was presided over by Shri Tafzel Hussain who held the office of the Tahsildar at the relevant time. It has been further stated that the petitioner himself had participated in the proceedings of the meeting and he having lost confidence of big majority could not be allowed to retard the course of democracy by imposing himself as a Sarpanch on a minconceived technical ground.