The State Government cannot dissolve a Panchayat without giving it an opportunity of being heard under Section 77(f) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, as the principles of natural justice require that no person should be condemned unheard.

D. S. DAVE J.

( 1 ) THIS is a writ application by Banshilal and 9 others under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arising out of the following circumstances:

( 2 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred upon non-petitioner No. 1, i. e. The rajasthan State, under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, a Gram panchayat was constituted for Kanod in Udaipur District. The election of the panchas of the said Panchayat was held on 5-8-1955. The Petitioners were declared to be duly elected panchas in the said election by notification No. 31541/42 dated 30-9-1955. The petitioner No. 1, Banshilal, was elected as surpanch, petitioner No. 2, Madanlal was elected as Upsarpanch and the remaining 8 were elected as panchas. They took their oath of office and started working.

( 3 ) THE petitioners allegation is that since they were members of the Praja Socialist party, the Congress Party first tried its best through Roshanlai, Vishvanath Vyas and Udailal to persuade them to join the congress party, but when they could not be persuaded to do so, Shri Udailal Vardia moved non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 for dissolving the Kanod panchayat on the basis of a few false complaints. Non-petitioner No. 2, therefore, framed 5 charges against the petitioners and they were called upon to explain why the Kanod panchayat be not superseded under Section 73 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953. On receipt of the above charges the petitioners submitted their explanations wherein they denied all the allegations made against them. Even then the non-petitioner No. " 2 made no enquiry into the charges. Thereafter, a notification was made on 22-10-1956, 5-11-1956, under the orders of the Rajpramukh to the effect that the Gram Panchayat Kanod was dissolved under Section 77 of the rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 which will hereinafter be referred as the Act. It is contended by the petitioners that although action under Section 73 of the Act was started against them, the non-petitioners suddenly switched on to Section 77 of the Act and without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to explain their conduct, the Gram Panchayat was dissolved. It is further pointed out that the charges which were initially levelled against the petitioners under Section 73 of the Act were so vague that except in respect of one of them no possible reply could be given and that when the non-petitioners found that they had no good grounds to proceed under Section 73, they suddenly turned "to Section 77 and passed the impugned order just to oust the petitioners from the gram panchayat. It has been strenuously contended that the action taken by the non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 under S, 77

is grossly unjust, illegal and against the principles of natural justice, and since there is no other remedy available to the petitioners which is equally speedy, convenient, beneficial and efficacious, this Court should issue a writ, direction or order quashing the order of the non-petitioner No. 1 dated 22-10-1956, 5-11-1956.

( 4 ) BEFORE going through the reply of the non-petitioners, it would be proper to mention here the charges which were levelled against the petitioners when an action under Section 73 of the Act was proposed to be taken Against them. . . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .

( 5 ) IN repy, it has been admitted by the non-petitioners that the above charges were served upon the petitioners because several complaints were received against them. It is denied that the non-petitioners were guided by any political considerations. On the other hand, it was asserted that on the receipt of several complaints-against the petitioners a preliminary enquiry was made by the divisional Panchayat Officer, Udaipur, and on his report the Government felt satisfied that there was a good case against the petitioners and hence a charge-sheet was served on the panchas and they were asked to show cause why the panchayat should not be superseded. The petitioners were further given a cha