ALAM DEEN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was elected as sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Gandheli, panchayat Samiti Nohaf, District hanumangarh. However, a motion of no confidence came to be passed against him in the meeting dated 15-3-2007. Questioning the validity of the proceedings on the said motion of no confidence, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition; and according to the petitioner, the proceedings are vitiated for various reasons as noticed in brief hereinbelow.

(2.) IN the first place, the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 4 Smt. Bachcha devi, who was the Ward Panch from Ward no. 7, was not entitled to participate in the proceedings relating to such no confidence motion for having already tendered her resignation on 2-1-2007 (Annex. 4) that was duly accepted on 23-2-2007 (Annex. 6) and thereby the seat from the said ward was declared vacant; and the requisite information in that regard was forwarded by the vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Nohar to the District Election Officer on 8-3-2007 (Annex. 7 ). It has been pointed out that earlier a notice was issued to the respondent no. 4 for the meeting converted for the purpose of motion of no confidence but then, such a notice was cancelled on 12-3-2007 (Annex. 8) for her resignation having been accepted and the seat of Ward No. 7 having been declared vacant.

(3.) THE petitioner has averred that on 14-3-2007, the State Government proceeded to issue an order (Annex. 10) stating that the concerned Minister had purportedly stayed the order dated 23-2-2007 as passed by the vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Nohar on the basis of an affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4. The petitioner points out that the respondent No. 4 was held entitled to and did participate in the proceedings on the said motion of no confidence only on the basis of such stay order; and contends that the alleged stay order, issued only a day before the scheduled meeting was nothing less than high-handedness only for the purpose for allowing the no confidence motion to be passed against the petitioner. It is submitted that the order dated 14-3-2007 deserves to be set aside and the proceedings of the meeting dated 15-3-2007 deserve to be quashed on this count alone.