MANJULA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition prayer is made that entire proceedings initiated by Mr. Attah Ullah Khan, Asstt. Accounts Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara, respondent No. 2 on the basis of Annex. 1 (complaint) be declared illegal and respondents be restrained from declaring the result of the said no confidence motion. The second contention which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that notice for no confidence motion is not in the prescribed form.

(2.) EARLIER , D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 2338/97 was preferred and it was found that Panchas were not illegally detained. Another question was raised that Mr. Attah Ullah Khan was not competent to issue notice for convening the meeting on 24th June, 1997. The Court directed that all the questions relating to the meeting of 24th June, 1997 be considered separately.

(3.) THE submission of learned Counsel for the respondents is that respondent No. 2 since was holding the charge, therefore, was competent to issue notice and in terms of Section 37(3) of the Act of 1994 notice has to be issued within 30 days from the date on which the notice of no confidence motion moved. It was obligatory to continue the proceedings which have been initiated. It is also stated that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner and that irregularity in the conduct of proceedings would not vitiate the proceedings.