BHANWAR SINGH SHAKTAWAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Appeal is against the judgment dated 3. 5. 2007 by which the petitioner's writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadesar of District Chittorgarh had total 15 members who were eligible to cast their votes on the No Confidence Motion against the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti Smt. Pyari Bai. THE Motion was put for consideration in the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti held on 22. 2. 2007. Before 22. 2. 2007, three orders were passed by the State Government declaring the petitioner and the members Mangi Lal Dangi and Smt. Kamla Devi disqualified and their seats were declared vacant under Section 39 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short the Act of 1994) on incurring their disqualification under Section 39 (1) (b) of the Act of 1994 on account of their remaining absent in the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti on three continuous occasions without information. Copies of these orders are Annexture-7, Annexture-8 and Annexture-9. However, the orders passed against the Mangi Lal Dangi and Smt. Kamla Devi were withdrawn by the Government on next day only vide orders dated 22. 2. 2007 (Annexture-10 and Annexture-11 ). THE information of cancellation of declaring the seats of Mangi Lal Dangi and Smt. Kamla Devi as vacant, were sent by fax to the Sub- Divisional Officer who was conducting the proceedings for consideration of No Confidence Motion against Pradhan Smt. Pyari Devi. THE orders of dis-qualification of Mangi Lal Dangi and Smt. Kamla Devi were withdrawn by the Government on their representations that before declaring them disqualified to hold the post of Member and declaring their seats vacant, no opportunity of hearing was given to them. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was also not given any notice before declaring his seat vacant after holding him disqualified to hold the post on the same ground of his absence in three continuous meetings of the Panchayat Samiti without information but the order dated 21. 2. 2007 which was passed against him was not withdrawn malafidely.

(3.) IN reply, respondent no. 4 Smt. Pyari Bai, Chair Person of the Panchayat Samiti specifically took objection that she received copies of the amended writ petition along with the notices but when matter was listed before the court on 13. 4. 2007, the counsel for answering respondents, on inspection, found that there is no order of this Court allowing the amendment in the writ petition sought by the petitioner and in absence of any order allowing the amendment of the writ petition, it was not open for the petitioner for sending the notice of the amended writ petition to the answering respondents. According to learned counsel for respondent no. 4, filing of the notice of amended writ petition clearly goes to show that the petitioner has tried to overreach the process of this Court and, therefore, the petitioner is dis-entitled for any relief from this Court in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia.