JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by six elected members of the Chavandia Gram Panchayat challenging validity of the co-option of respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7. The application has been contested on behalf of respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4. Respondent No. 2 has been elected as the Sarpanch and the other two respondents as Panchas of this Gram Panchayat.

2. The facts as appear from the affidavits filed by the parties and from the documents produced before the Court are these. The Chavandia Gram Panchayat was duly constituted with effect from 1.12.60. The election of the Sarpanch and the Panchas was held on 30.12.60. The result was declared on the same day. Respondent No. 2 Hanuman Singh was declared elected as Sarpanch and petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were declared elected as Panchas. The elected Panchas did not include any female or any member of the Scheduled Caste. It was therefore necessary to co-opt two females and one member of the Scheduled Caste under sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act as amended by the Amendment Act of 1960. The population of the members of the Scheduled Tribes in the Panchayat Circle not being more than 5 per cent it was not necessary to co-opt any member of that class.

3. On 31.12.60 the Sarpanch circulated a notice which was written on the proceedings register intimating that one member of the Scheduled Caste and two females would be co-opted on 1.1.61 at 10 a. m. at the school building and that the Panchas should attend and file nomination papers by 11 a.m. after which no nomination paper would be accepted. This notice was shown to 7 out of the 8 Panchas who signed the proceedings register or put their thumb-marks in taken of having received the intimation about the meeting of co-option. The meeting was held on 1.1.61 but as all the Panchas did not attend no one was co-opted.

4. Another notice was circulated by the Sarpanch. It was written out on a separate piece of paper and bears the date 2.1.61. This notice was also served on seven out of the eight Panchas. Under this notice the Panchas were informed that they should meet on 9.1.61 at 10 a.m. at the school building as one Panch belonging to the Backward Classes would be elected. The Sarpanch and seven out of the 8 Panchas attended the meeting on 9.1.61. The proceedings are entered in the proceedings register in accordance with which Maldass respondent No.5 was co-opted as a Panch belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Smt. Gulabdi and Smt. Juwardi respondents Nos. 6 and 7 were co-opted as female members. With regard to the proceedings of this meeting there is controversy between the parties. On behalf of the petitioners it is asserted that no co-option took place and that their signatures and thumb-marks were taken on the proceedings book on the mis-representation that they only signified their presence at the meeting. On behalf of the contesting respondents however the contention is that co-option proceedings took place and that these 3 respondents were co-opted unanimously by the Sarpanch and seven out of the eight Panchas.

5. Narayan Singh petitioner No. 3 who is the Panch whose thumb-marks do not appear on the notices for the meetings on 1.1.61 and 9.1.61 and on the proceedings of the proceedings of the meeting dated 9.1.61, has filed an affidavit that he was present in the village, but no notice was brought to him. The case of the contesting respondents is that an attempt was made to serve Narayan Singh but he could not be found.

6. A statement showing the names and addresses of the Panchas co-opted was drawn up by the Sarpanch and was sent to the Collector. It appears to have reached his office on 16.1.61. One copy of notice on form No.V for the meeting on 1.1.61 was also sent to the office of the Collector which appears to have been received there on 14.1.61. No paper relating to the co-option was sent to the Collector.

7. The validity of the co-option is challenged on the ground of n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document