SANTOSH GARG Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has a chequered history. The petitioner is a lady Sarpanch. THIS is the III writ petition filed by her before this Court. First writ petition No. 4441/97 was filed by her praying that the respondent No. 2 be restrained from holding the meeting of passing no confidence motion against her on 15. 12. 1997, in pursuance of the notice dt. 21. 11. 97. It was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition.

(2.) SECOND writ petition No. 4619/97 was filed by the petitioner challenging the notice dated 18. 12. 1997 calling the meeting of the Panchayat to be held on 3. 1. 1998, and obtained stay upto 12. 12. 1997, which was subsequently not extended. The second writ petition was also dismissed as withdrawn on 27. 1. 1998 with liberty to file fresh writ petition. A copy of the said order is annexed by the learned counsel for the respondents alongwith the reply affidavit.

(3.) MR. Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that three other Panchas were also not served with the notice dated 20. 1. 1998, therefore, calling of the meeting on 27. 1. 1998 to pass no confidence motion against the petitioner is illegal. However, it was pointed out by MR. Bishnoi from the reply affidavit that they were duly served. This was not controverted by the petitioner in her rejoinder. However, learned counsel Shri Saluja vehemently submitted that merely asserting in the reply affidavit by the respondents that the three other Panchas were served was not enough and they should have produced the documentary evidence in support of the same that those three Panchas were duly served with the notice. In support of his submission, MR. Saluja placed reliance upon the judgment in case of Gajanand Narayan Patil vs. Dattatraya Waman Patil (2) (relevant para 11 and 12 at page 641 and 642 respectively ). I fail to understand that how this judgment of the Supreme Court in Gajanand Narayan Patil's case (supra) has any application on the facts of this case. A statement made on oath by the responsible officer has to be accepted rather than a vague statement made by the petitioner on oath. I would like to reproduce the averments made by the petitioner in her writ petition at para 6, which is as under:- " That on later enquiries the petitioner learns that the notice dated 20. 1. 1998 was not served upon Sarva Shri Sahi Ram-Panch from Ward No. 9, Bharat Singh from Ward No. 11 and Hari Singh from Ward No. 8 and it is only 8 out of 12 Panchas who were present in the meeting and of course since the petitioner did not come to know of the meeting, she was also not present. "