DAULA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application involves a short point viz., whether the direction of the Government dated 21 November, 1975 (Exhibit 3, that all motions for consideration of to confidence against pramukh, Up Pramukh, Pradhan Up Pradhan, Sarpanch and Up -Sarpanch be stayed upto 31st December, 1975 due to drives of allotment of houses sites, allotment of agricultural land and other items of 20 points Economic Programme. The question arises in this manner. The non -petitioners No. 4 Shri Hardeosingh is Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Fatehpur District Sikar. A motion of no confidence by this requisite number of members was moved against him and the Collector, Sukar thereupon issued a notice dated 29 Oct. 1975 (Exhibit 1) calling the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion on 24th November 1975. However, in pursuance of the Government's direction dated 21st November, 1975 (Exhibit 1) referred to above, the Collector by his order bearing the same, date, postponed the consideration of the no -confidence motion and cancelled the notice (Exhibit -1) calling the meeting on 24th November, 1975 for consideration of the no confidence motion.

(2.) THEREUPON the petitioner who is one of the signatories to the motion of no confidence filed the present writ application in this court for issuing an appropriate writ for quashing the order, Exhibit 1, Exhibit -2 and Exhibit -3 and for issuing a direction to the Collector, Sikar to convene the meeting for consideration of the motion at an early date.

(3.) THE other preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel is that the writ petition is cot maintainable, inasmuch as it has not been moved by all the signatories to the non -confidence motion The motion was moved by 22 members in all and under section 12(h) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishads Act, 1969 (which will hereinafter he retailed to as 'the Act') a subsequent motion as in the present case must be moved by more than half of the total number of members of the Panchayat Samiti in the present case at the relevant time was 41 and, therefore, undisputedly the motion was property moved, inasmuch as it was signed by 22 persons. The objection is that all those 22 members should have been joined in this writ petition and since only one of them has come forward as the petitioner and there have not been joined even as non -petitioners, the writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention, strong reliance has bean placed by Mr. Dutt on Pt. Kalicharan Sharma vs. Chief Panchayat Officer. In that case the election of the Sarpanch was challenged by the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one elector only. An objection was taken on behalf of the opposite party that in the first place an election petition could have been brought for challenging the election and, therefore, the writ application was not entertainable. This objection found favour with the Court. In the alternative it was urged that the relevant provision of law required that the reaction petition must be filed by atleast 10 qualified electors. It was, therefore, contended that a single elector could not file a writ application for setting aside the election of the Sarpanch. This objection was allowed & it was observed that it would be improper to permit one elector to challenge the validity of the election in this Court, inasmuch as by doing that the court would allow him to do a thing which the Legislature had obviously not permitted The facts of that case are, therefore, clearly distinguishable and the rationale of that decision has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Here the motion of no confidence has been moved by the requisite number of members, on which the meeting was also called But according to the petitioner, an illegality has been committed by the Collector in canceling the meeting on the basis of an invalid order by the Government, I am, therefore, not persuaded to accept this preliminary objection either.