BRIJLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE applications have been made for recalling a writ issued by this Court on the 26th of October, 1959. One of the petitions is on behalf of the members of the Panchayat and the other on behalf of the Chairman. It related to the setting aside of an election of Gram Panchayat Jhajhoo on the ground that the election was void and that the members of the Panchayat or the Sarpanch could not function as such. There were several points taken in support of the petition to which the Sarpanch or the Gram Panchayat as also the Government which held the election were impleaded as respondents. It was stated that there was violation of Rules 3 & 4 of the Panchayat Rules which were both mandatory. Rule 3 requires that the Chief Panchayat Officer shall fix a date for holding the election and the Collector had no authority to do so, and that the notices required to be served under Rule 4, which as it then stood, had to be served at least seven days before the date of election, were not so served. It was stated that one or the places on which the notice in question had to be served was Mokha Palliwallan and there it had been served as late as the 24th of March, 1958, which was the date of the election itself. It was, therefore,, submitted that Rule 4, which has been repeatedly held to be mandatory by this Court, had been clearly infringed. In my order dated the 26th of October, 1959, I held that there was a clear violation of Rule 4 of the Rules and the election had to be set aside. I accordingly made the rule nisi absolute and confirmed the writ. So far as the violation of Rule 3 was concerned, I did not come to any finding on that point.

(2.) MR. Acharya in these applications for recalling the writ has urged two points in his support. He contends that the members of the Panchayat, who have now presented one of the petitions, were not impleaded as parties to the previous application. According to him, they were necessary parties, and in their absence, it could not be held that the election was void because they were also affected by that order. His second contention is chat Mokha Palliwallan was not one of the group of villages which constituted the Panchayat and therefore any service of notice on the village in question was unnecessary; and even assuming that a notice on that village was served on the 24th of March, 1958, that would not amount to any violation of Rule 4 so as to vitiate the election. Oh the last occasion unfortunately no one appeared on behalf of the Sarpanch. The learned Deputy Government Advocate appeared for the State. He submits that it was only at the last stage that the Government decided to contest the petition for writ and therefore he did not have the advantage of ascertaining all the facts bearing on the points involved.