Modi, J.—This is an application for writ by Gokulchand, Sar Panch of village. Panchayat Gangani, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur, under Art. 226, of the Constitution and raises an interesting question as to the interpretation of sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (No. XXI) of 1953 (hereinafter called the Act). Learned counsel for both patties are agreed that the point is not covered by authority of this or any other Court.

2. It is necessary to state a few facts in order to appreciate the point in controversy. It is common ground between the parties that under Sec. 4 of the Act, this Panchayat consists of 10 members including the Sar Panch. The elections to this Panchayat were last held on the 17th December, 1959, as a result of which the petitioner was elected as Sar Panch and opposite parties Nos. 2 to 8 as Panchas. It is also not in dispute that . village Sewki constituted a part of this Panchayat and two Panchas were to be returned by it but the inhabitants of this village refused to go to the polls, for reasons which are not material for our purposes, so that two out of the ten seats assigned to this Panchayat have remained vacant. It then appears that the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 8 passed a vote of no-confidence against the petitioner on the 26th March, 1959. On the 28th March, 1959, the District Panchayat Officer informed the Sar Panch, vide annexure 2, that the resolution passed against him was invalid as it had not been passed by the requisite three-forths majority which apparently, according to this officer, should have consisted of 8 members out of the total strength of the Panchayat being 10. The Panchas then reported the matter to the Chief Panchayat Officer on the 20th April, 1959 (annexure 3). The Chief Panchayat Officer held that the vote of no-confidence passed by the opposite parties aforesaid against the petitioner was valid, and, therefore, he proceeded to direct him to vacate . his office. A fresh election of Sar Panch was also ordered. This led to the filing of the present writ petition by the petitioner in this Court on the 4th May, 1959. By an interim order of this court dated the 6th May, 1959, this fresh election was postponed. It is in these circumstances that the question of the correct interpretation of sec. 19 of the Act which governs the matter has arisen.

3. The relevant portion of sec. 19 is as follows—

(1) A motion of no-confidence may be moved by any Panch after giving such notice as may be prescribed against the Sarpanch and UpSarpanch.

(2) If the motion against the Sarpanch is carried by a majority of not less than 3/4th of the total number of Panchas.........the Sarpanch...... ..... shall within 3 days of the passing of the motion resign his office by submitting his resignation to the Chief Panchayat Officer and thereupon his office shall be deemed to be vacant.

(3) If the Sarpanch.........against whom the motion of no-confidence has been carried does not resign his office within the period prescribed in sub-sec. (2), he shall be removed from his office by the Chief Panchayat Officer."

4. The question for determination, therefore, is what is the precise meaning of the phrase "by a majority of not less than 3/4th of the total number of Panchas" occurring in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 19 set out above. In other words, whether the phrase "total number of Panchas" signifies the total strength of the Panchayat as fixed under sec. 4 of the Act or the total number of Panchas for the time being. The learned Deputy Government Advocate strenuously contends that the latter is and should be the correct interpretation of the phrase in question. If this is held to be correct, then there is no doubt that the total number of Panchas for the time being of this Panchayat was only 8, and a three-forths majority of it would comprise six members only, and on this interpretation, the no-confidence motion should be held to have been passed by the requisite statutory majority. If, on the other hand, the correct meaning

Click Here to Read the rest of this document