RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Motion of no confidence was moved against the present petitioner which was carried out in the meeting held on 5-5-1988. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the meeting held on 5-8-88 on number of grounds. However, taking note of decision of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Singh v. State of Raj (AIR 1990 Rajasthan 69), he has agreed only on the point that the motion of no-confidence was not declared for consideration by the Presiding Officer and there is a clear violation of R. 15 Clause (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961.

(2.) Mr. Sharma with all his vehemance at his command submitted that it is, the requirement of the democratic procss that the motion of no-confidence should be discussed and there should be opportunity for discussion. He has invited our attention to para No. 6 of the reply to the writ petition. In this para No. 6, it is mentioned that the Presiding Officer has not declared that the motion is not open for discussion. In reply to para No. 6 of the writ petition, the respondents have submitted that the Tehsildar has declared that the motion is open for discussion. It was further submitted that the Presiding Officer, Tehsildar asked all the panchas, present at the time of meeting that whether they have to say anything in respect of the motion for no confidence and in response to that, the eight panches and answering non-petitioner Prahald Singh unanimously supported the motion of no confidence against the petitioner and thereafter all the nine panchas including the answering non-petitioner signed the proceedings.

(3.) This Court in the case of Abdual Rahman v. Municipal Board, Mukrana reported in 1965 Raj LW 295 held that the object of these provisions is to ensure that the object of these provisions is to ensure that the vote of non-confidence is passed for really valid reasons and not capriciously and are aimed at giving the shainmen material ground which the vote of non-confidence has been proposed at as to enable him to make a proper representation. May it be so In Annexure 2 itself it has been mentioned that the motion of non-confidence is read over by the Presiding Officer Apart from that notice of motion of no-confidence was issued a week before. We should take the practical approach in the matter of Political issues and should see that the democracy really survives. It is the duty of the citizens including the person who has been elected on the post to see that he is really having the confidence of the majority. Particularly when, nine persons are voting against the Sarpanch and, there is a provision that the motion of no-confidence will be carried out with a majority of 3/4 total panchas. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the persons who have voted were signorant of the fact.