SHIV DUTTA PARIKH Vs. BHAGIRATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The only question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the notice of motion under R.14 of Rajasthan Panchayat General Rules, 1961 can be delivered to the District Development Officer and whether he can call a meeting. R. 14 provides that any panch of a Panchayat desiring to move a motion of no-confidence against its Sarpanch or Up-sarpanch shall deliver or cause to be delivered a notice of such motion in writing to the Deputy District Development Officer. The expression Deputy District Development Officer has not been defined in the Panchayat Act. But Cl. (16) of S.2 provides that words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Rajasthan Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959, shall have the meanings assigned to them in the later. In the Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act, 1959, the expression District Development Officer has been defined to mean -the Collector of the District, Dy. District Development Officer, or Additional District Development Officer as such .have not been defined. Even in the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti Act and Zila Parishads Act the expression Additional District. Development Officer and Deputy District Development Officer have been used. The question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether for the purposes of R.14 of the Rajasthan Panchayat General Rules, 1961, the District Development Officer is competent to review the notice of no-confidence motion.

(3.) It is urged by Shri S.N.Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner that the only authority or officer competent to receive notice of such motion is the Deputy District Development Officer and, no other authority even higher to him is competent to receive the notice of such a motion. A controversy has arisen in the course of arguments as to whether at the relevant time-of the submission of the notice, there was any post of Deputy District Development Officer or not or there was Additional District Development Officer and whether the post of any such officer was put in abeyance by the Government. Without entering into this question we proceed to examine this question as to whether authority higher to the Deputy District Development Officer can receive the motion or not. It may be stated that there is no prohibition in Rule 14. It only states that such a motion shall be delivered to Deputy District Development Officer. It may stated that no officer subordinate to the Deputy District Development Officer can be competent or can exercise-the function under Rule 14 but so far as higher authority or officer is concerned, in our opinion, he is competent to receive the notice of such a motion. A higher authority possesses powers of all subordinate authorities. It is only an administrative or executive function to receive a notice of motion of no-confidence and a subordinate authority, may be assigned as a function rule making by the body while making subordinate legislation. Unless there is prohibition, in our opinion, a higher authority can exercise such a power. There is a Single Bench decision of this Court in Kurda Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 Rajasthan LR 472 in which it is expressed that the Collector (Panehayat) is the District Development Officer of the Panchayat and he has got all the powers of Deputy. District Development Officer. We agree with this view expressed by the learned single Judge although in that decision it was also expressed that such an objection is of a technical character and such a technical objection cannot be accepted in the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the delivery of notice to the District Development Officer in the present case is legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. In the view we have taken above, for the purpose of R.15, as well the power can be exercised by the District Development Officer.