KALAWATI MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents initiating the no-confidence motion against him on 27.7.2007 pursuant to the order dated 9.7.2007.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that there are in all 13 members of the Gram Panchayat, Rondkalan, Panchayat Samiti Karauli, Distt. Karauli but certain members belonging to a particular community grouped together and presented a no- confidence motion against the petitioner before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Karauli on 9.7.2007. The Chief Executive Officer by his order dated 9.7.2007 nominated Tehsildar Karauli to preside over the meeting of Gram Panchayat and fixed the meeting of the Gram Panchayat at 11.00 AM on 27.7.2007. While the notice of the meeting was issued to all the members but the competent authority failed to forward copy of the proposed motion and notice as required under clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Sec. 37 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 to the petitioner. The notice was not served upon the petitioner to inform her about the date and time of the motion, which she came to know from other members only. The petitioner and other members waited at the office of the Gram Panchayat at 11.00 AM, which was the scheduled time of meeting but Tehsildar did not turn up to attend the meeting even after passing of half an hour. Thereafter they inquired about 11.30 AM as to why Tehsildar has not been able to come, but no information was received. They waited uptil 1.00 AM and thereafter disbursed. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that Naib Tehsildar Rajendra Goyal was deputed as Tehsildar to preside over the meeting in his place, who assembled the other members and convened the meeting illegally showing the time of the meeting to be between 11.00 AM and 11.20 AM and the resolution was shown to have been carried out by majority. No such meeting in fact took place. It was argued that although in accordance with Sec. 37 of the Act of 1994, the Chief Executive Officer is the competent authority and in view of the provisions of sub-section (4), competent authority has to preside over the meeting and if he is unable to do so, he can nominate any other officer and in that event, the nominated officer can preside over the meeting and no other officer can do so. The entire exercise undertaken in the meeting presided by Naib Tehsildar was, therefore. nullity in law and motion of no-confidence alleged to have been passed against the petitioner is, therefore, wholly illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument relied on the judgment in Madan Lal Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5563/98 decided on 7.12.1998 reported in 1999 (2) WLC (Raj.) 443 .

(3.) On the other hand, Shri B.S. Chhaba, the learned Deputy Government Advocate opposed the writ petition and argued that the meeting was conveyed at the appointed time and that the mere fact that instead of Tehsildar, Naib Tehsildar presided over the meeting would not make any material difference because he was equally competent to do so. It was denied that the notice was not accompanied by the no confidence motion. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition to be dismissed.