KUMARI CHANDRA KALA Vs. LALOORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a special appeal under sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against the judgment of a learned single Judge in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by Lalooram who was member of the Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner for a declaration that Kumari Chandrakala had ceased to hold the office of Pradhan and member of Panchayat Samiti Bikaner as well as that of Sarpanch, Panchayat, Kalasar as she failed to take the oath prescribed under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 72 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (Act No. 37 of 1959, hereinafter called the Act) within the time prescribed in sub-sec. (2) of that section or under sec. 72-A thereof.

(2.) KUMARI Chandra Kala was elected as member of the Gram Panchayat Kalasar within the jurisdiction of Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner, and by virtue of sec. 3 of the Act she became an ex-officio member of the Panchayat Samiti, Bikaner. On 30th January, 1965, she was elected as Pradhan of that Panchayat Samiti. She took the oath contained in Ex. 1 before Shri K. R. Goyal on 30th January, 1965. She further took oaths in the forms contained in Exs. 2 and 3 on the 18th August, 1965, before Mr. K. G. Raj who is described as Collector, Bikaner, in these exhibits. The contentions of the respondent Lalooram in his writ petition were that the form of oath contained in Ex. 1 taken by the petitioner in the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti held on 30th January, 1965, was not in accordance with sub-sec. (1) of sec. 72 of the Act and that the appellant had not taken any oaths before the Collector within the time prescribed in sec. 72-A as the oaths contained in Exs. 2 and 3 were not taken before the Collector but were taken before the Assistant Collector and were therefore not precise compliance with the provisions of sec. 72-A of the Act. It was urged that all the three oaths taken by the petitioner being not in accordance with law, were not valid and the appellant ceased to be a member of the Panchayat Samiti in accordance with the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 72. It was further urged that as she ceased to be a member of the Panchayat Samiti, she ipso facto ceased to be Pradhan and she also ceased to be the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Kalasar. It was, therefore, prayed that a writ in the nature of quo warranto or any other writ, direction or order may be issued against the appellant restraining her from functioning in any of these capacities, in other words, for vacating these offices forthwith.

(3.) THE learned single Judge has held that the oath taken on the 18th August, 1955, was illegal on the ground that it was not administered by the Collector and further on the ground that the appellant did not take oath of the office of the member of the Panchayat Samiti as required under sec. 72-A of the Act.