RAMHETLAL Vs. COLLECTOR SAWAI MADHOPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition before me is by one Ramhetlal who is a Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Mahwa, District Sawai Madhopur and he seeks to question the validity of an order of the Collector, Sawai Madhopur Ex. 11 on record passed by him on 26-9 67 whereby he ordered the convening of a meeting for consideration of a motion of no-confidence, notice of which was given to the Collector by some member of the Panchayat Samiti, Mahwa. THE petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order.

(2.) THE relevant facts as contained in the writ petition are briefly these. THE petitioner was the elected Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Mahwa and he was elected by an electoral college as contemplated by section 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). THE electoral college consisted of 389 persons. One Kishorilal respondent No. 10 who was a member of the Panchayat Samiti presented before the Collector, Sawai Madhopur on 13-9 67 a notice for the motion of no-confidence purporting to have been signed by 22 members of the Panchayat Samiti. THE petitioner's case regarding this notice of the motion of no-confidence is that four of the members of the Panchayat Samiti whose signatures appear to be on the notice of the motion of no-confidence had never appended their signatures on any such notice for a motion of no-confidence but a fraud was practised on them in this behalf. It is stated that these members who were respondents Nos. 3 to 7 were asked to sign some blank papers on the pretext that a joint application for the increase of the sugar quota would be made. According to the petitioner when later on these respondents came to know that the signatures that were obtained were sought to be used for another purpose, namely that of giving notice of a motion of no-confidence, they signed certain affidavit to that effect and then their affidavits were presented before the Collector on the 12th of September, 1967 i. e. , a day earlier to the presentation of the notice by respondent No. 10 before the Collector.

(3.) LASTLY, I may say a word about the fifth point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As I have come to the conclusion that this was an administrative act of the Collector and he was under no duty to act judicially or to proceed as a tribunal quasi judicially, he was not precluded from informing his mind in a better way by consulting more experienced officers in the department. I am, therefore, unable to find any substance in this contention