STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BHANWARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Smt. Bhanwari Devi was elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Ribia, Panchayat Samiti, Churu in the election held in the month of February 1995. On 14 -3 -96 a complaint was made against her by one Shri Paras Ram before the Chief Executive Officer cum Secretary, Zila Parishad, Churu that by giving birth to one additional child on 2.2.96 raising the number of her children to more than two, Smt. Bhanwari Devi has incurred the disqualification under Section 19(1)(iv) of the Act to continue as the Sarpanch. Alongwith the complaint, Shri Paras Ram submitted the Birth Certificate (Annexure. Rule 2) and the Certificate (Annexure. R,3) in proof of giving birth to a child by Smt. Bhanwari Devi.

(2.) THE Chief Executive Officer thereafter appointed the Vikas Adhikari to hold an enquiry and after completion of enquiry the Notice dated 15.5.96 (Annexure. Rule 4) under Section 39(2) of the Act was issued to Smt. Bhanwari Devi to show cause why she may not be declared 'disqualified' to continue as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat as she has given birth to an additional child after 25.11.95 increasing the number of her children to more than two.

(3.) THE Chief Executive Officer thereafter, by his order dated 4.7.96 (Annexure. 3) declared the petitioner -respondent as disqualified to continue as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner -respondent challenged the order Annexure. 3 dated 4.7.96 passed by the Chief Executive Officer by way of filing a writ petition. The writ petition filed by the petitioner -respondent was contested by the appellants (respondents in the writ petition). The learned Single Judge, by the judgment dated 11.10.96, allowed the writ petition filed by Smt. Bhanwari Devi by holding that the disqualification can only be determined by the Civil Court under Section 40 of the Act and the respondent No. 2 had no authority to pass the order declaring the petitioner respondent as having incurred the disqualification. The learned Single Judge, however, observed that the competent authority under Section 39 of the Act is competent to adjudicate the question falling within Sub -clauses (b) to (f) of Section 39(1) of the Act but has no authority to adjudicate the matter with respect to Sub -clause (a) to Sub -section (1) of Section 39 of the Act. It is against this judgment that the appellants have filed the present appeal.