HAZARA RAM Vs. PANCHAYAT SAMITI PADAMPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, 2-BBA tehsil Padampur district Sri Ganganagar and a Notification to this effect was issued in the Official Gazette. A few Members of the Panchayat gave a notice to the Authorities that they want to bring `no confidence motion' and in this regard a notice was issued by the Chief Executive Officer cum Secretary, Zila Parisad, Sri Ganganagar, which has been produced alongwith the writ petition as Annexure 3. THE meeting was scheduled to be held on 22. 4. 97 and the notice was issued on 4. 4. 97.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that on 4. 4. 97, when the notice was issued, it was not served on him but it was purportedly served on the minor son of the petitioner on 7. 4. 97 and since the notice was served on his minor son, it was not a proper service. However, that is a question of fact and not much emphasis has been given to it by the petitioner and he has urged that a notice under Sec. 37 of the Raj. Panchayat Act has not has been issued. Sec. 37 of the Act, 1994 reads as under : ``37. Motion of No-confidence in Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons. (1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Chairpersons or Deputy Chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the following sub-sections. (2) A written notice of intention to make the motion in such form as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one-third of the directly elected members of the Panchayati Raj Institution concerned together with a copy of the proposed motion, shall be delivered in person by any one of the members signing the notice to the competent authority. (3) THE competent authority shall thereupon- (i) forward a copy of the notice, together with a copy of the proposed motion to the Panchayat in the case of a Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, to the Panchayat Samiti in the case of a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan and to the Zila Parishad in the case of a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh. (ii) convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion at the office of the concerned Panchayati Raj Institution on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under Sub-section (1) was delivered to him; and (iii) give to the members a notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed. '' THE emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice was required to be for fifteen days and if the reckoning is done from 7. 4. 97 to 22. 4. 97 by excluding the dates 7. 4. 97 and 22. 4. 97, the period fell short of fifteen days stipulated period. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the explanation of the expression `clear days' as contained in Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) which says that ``if a certain number of clear days be given for the doing of any act, the time is to be reckoned exclusively, as well as of the first and as the last'' and on this, his contention is that the first day and the last day have to be excluded. He has further placed reliance on a decision of this Court in : Anokhmal Bhurelal vs. Chief Panchayat Officer, Rajasthan, Jaipur & Ors. (1) wherein it has been held that ``the use of the words `at least seven days before the date of election' clearly indicates that the law contemplates exclusion of the date of election in the computation of the interval of seven days for the purpose of that rule. '' THE Court held that seven clear days' interval is required between the date of announcement of the notice and the date of election. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that in the present case the notice was not for a clear fifteen days and since the notice falls short of the required time, it was not a valid notice and the notice could not have been for a period less than fifteen days and, thus, the proceedings of the meeting are vitiated. He has further placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in : Pioneer Motors (Private) Ltd. etc. vs. Municipal Council, Nagercoil (2) wherein the Apex Court has interpreted the words ``not being less than one month'' and held that these words implied that clear one month's notice was necessary to be given, that is, both the first day and the last day of the month had to be excluded. '' Thus, the basic argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if 7. 4. 97 and 22. 4. 97 are excluded out of the reckoning then the intervening period being not fifteen days, the provisions of law will make the notice for a period less than fifteen days and, therefore, the notice is bad.

(3.) YET the other facet of the case is that the petitioner has received the notice and had attended the meeting: though he refused to cast any vote. Once the petitioner had attended the meeting, the purpose of notice was served. The require- ment of the notice is for the purpose of expressing his opinion and try to spread his influence. There is no pleading in the writ petition that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner. In the absence of any such pleading, the petitioner cannot legimately urge the grounds of prejudice and in such a case, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in : K. Narasimhaih vs. H. G. Singri Gowda & Ors. it cannot be held that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner and, therefore, on this count also, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the writ petition is not liable to succeed.