R. K. ABICHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners who are President and Vice- president of the Gondal Taluka Panchayat have preferred this petition challenging the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 18/10/1995 confirmed by the State government on 13-12-1995, by which it was ordered that the decision of the president taken on 27-7-1995 for adjourning the meeting was illegal and therefore, the proceedings which were taken at the said meeting by the majority members were valid and the Committees constituted pursuant to that, stood duly constituted. The * for quashing the Order passed by the Dist. Development Officer and confirmed by respondent No. 1. President was warned against the lapse in discharging her duties as a President, for the future.

( 2 ) IT was strongly contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Minutes which were recorded for the meeting which took place on 27-7-1995, a copy of which is at Annexure "d" to the petition, clearly discloses that there was chaos at the meeting and that the petitioner as a President was justified in adjourning the meeting. Reliance was placed on the provisions of Sec. 69 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 which empowered the President to convene, preside and conduct meetings of the Taluka panchayats.

( 3 ) BOTH the authorities have found that there was no justification on the part of the petitioner to adjourn the meeting and it could not be said that the situation was beyond control and therefore, the proceedings which took place at that meeting, after the petitioner announced it to be adjoruned and left, were lawful proceedings and the majority decision regarding constitution of the Committee taken at that meeting, was required to be upheld.

( 4 ) UNDER the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 the corresponding provision regarding power of the President to convene, preside and conduct the meetings of the Taluka Panchayats was contained in Sec. 59. Under the Rules framed under the Act of 1961, provision was made under Rule 15 regarding adjournment of meeting. As per that provision, a meeting could be adjourned with the consent of the majority of the members present. It, therefore, appears that the President had no power to adjourn the meeting without the consent of the majority of the members, who were present at the meeting. Under the Act of 1993, no separate Rules have been framed so far, as stated by the learned Counsels for both the sides. Therefore, the Rules which were framed under the Act of 1961 will continue to operate to the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions of 1993 by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 276 (j) of the Act of 1993. Thus, the petitioner No. 1-President could not have adjourned the meeting without the consent of the majority members and the impugned orders cannot, therefore, be faulted with.

( 5 ) IT was submitted that the impugned decisions are perverse because the situation did warrant an adjournment while the authorities have held that adjournment was not warranted. The finding that the situation did not warrant an adjournment is a finding of fact which has been arrived at by both the authorities and there is no valid reason to go behind it. Under these circumstances, there is no warrant for interference with the impugned decisions. The petition is, therefore, rejected. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document