KANHAIYA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LOOKING to the nature of the controversy involved, we have issued the show cause notice of short duration on April 26, 1989. The notice was served on the non -petitioner but no reply has been filed. Mr. Pareek made a request to give time to file reply but because the meeting is to be held on May 12, 1989 for consideration of the no -confidence motion against Up -Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Nagar Fort, Panchayat Samiti, Deoli, we declined his request. Even otherwise we find no reason to allow time to the non -petitioner to file reply to show cause notice.

(2.) THE petitioner is one of the Panchas of village Panchayat, Nagar Fort, District Tonk The election of the posts of the Sarpanch and the Panchas of the aforesaid Panchayat was held in June 1988 and one Shri Paras Mal Jain came to be elected as the Up -Sarpanch. On March 24, 1989, the petitioner a Panch and Shiv Raj Singh another Panch of the Panchayat, moved a motion of no -confidence under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act'). The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Tonk under its notice dated April 4, 1989 convened a special meeting at 11.00 a.m. on 19 -4 -1988 for consideration of the motion of no -confidence against Shri Paras Mal Jain. The Tehsildar, Deoli was directed to be the Presiding Officer of the said meeting. When the petitioner along with other Panchs who are said to have been six and thus in all as many as seven appeared at the place of the meeting, they were informed that the meeting scheduled for April 19, 1989 had been cancelled. In the aforesaid meeting by an order it was given out that the meeting will be held on May 12, 1989.

(3.) A bare reading of the aforesaid Rule will show that the power vested in the State Government or on the report of the Collector to order to postponement of the meeting of the motion of no -confidence against the Sarpanch or Up -Sarpanch for such period as deemed necessary but the meeting should only be postponed on some reasonable grounds. A look at Annexure 3 dated April 19, 1989 will show that the Collector, Tonk to whom, it is not disputed, the powers under Rule 15 -A have been delegated is said to have come to know that because of the meeting fixed on 19th April, 1989 for consideration of the no -confidence motion there is tension and it is possible that in the matter of one Panch a situation may arise as a result of which breach of peace may be disturbed, therefore, he ordered the adjournment of the meeting and fixed the dated of meeting as May 12, 1989 at 11.00 a.m. in the Panchayat Bhawan and further ordered that the Tehsildar, Deoli shall preside over the meeting. We talk of making the Panchayat institution more stronger and we talk of making the local self Government at grass root level but then at the lower level interfere at every stage in the functioning of the Panchayat for reasons which do not appear to be on record to interfere at every stage. Once a special meeting for consideration of no -confidence motion was fixed, it should not have been generally and ordinarily adjourned. The Government has sufficient machinery to prevent and breach of peace.