Chhangani, J.—This is a special appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.4.61 of Bhargava, J. sitting single whereby he allowed the writ application of respondents No. 1 to 5, set aside the proceedings of the Panchayat Jaisinghdesar (Magra) dated 4.1.1961 and quashed the co-option of the appellants No. 1 to 3 and issued a mandate to the Collector, Bikaner to appoint an officer to convene a special meeting for the co-option of the Panchas as required by proviso under sub-sec. 9(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act.

2. The facts necessary and relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are simple and fall within a narrow compass. Elections for Gram Panchayat Jaisinghdesar (Magra) were held on 8.12.1960. Respondent No. 7 Harbhaj was elected Sarpanch. Respondents No. 1 to 5 and Shri Shivlal, Shri Goverdhan and Shri Anopsingh, who were opposite parties in the writ application, but no longer parties to the present appeal, in all eight persons, were elected as panchas. The total strength of the Gram Panchayat is 12 and three more Panchas, two women and one another, were required to be co-opted under sec. 9(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Sarpanch took his oath on 13.12.1960. On 27.12.60 he issued a notice fixing 4th January., 1961 for holding a meeting for the co-option of the Panchas. The first three appellants Laduram, Smt. Phoosi and Smt. Kesar were co-opted as Panchas. Some other persons had filed nominations for co-option but they were rejected. The candidates whose nomination papers were rejected, it is admitted, have filed election petitions challenging the co-option and they are said to be still pending. Meanwhile, respondents No. 1 to 5 who are the elected Panchas submitted an application under Art. 226 of the Indian Constitution to this Court challenging the co-option of the first three appellants for the Gram Panchayat Jaisinghdesar (Magra). Their case was that the co-option of the appellants to the Gram Panchayat was void because the Sarpanch had no authority to issue a notice on 27.12.60 and to convene the meeting for their co-option on 4.1.1961. The said meeting, according to the petitioners, was held in contravention of sec. 9(2) of the Act as amended by Act No. 25 of 1960. It was contended that the Sarpanch-respondent No. 7 was declared elected on 8.12.1960 and it was incumbent upon him to have convened the special meeting of the newly elected Panchas for the purpose of co-option within 15 days after his election in the manner prescribed by rule 51 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules (hereinafter called the Rules). It was further contended that sec. 9(2) of the Act is mandatory in nature and after the Sarpanch fails to convene such a meeting within 15 days, the officer appointed by the Collector in this behalf has to convene such a meeting. The respondents No. 1 to 5 had also taken other objections in the writ application for getting the co-option set aside but the judgment of the learned single Judge turned upon only the point mentioned above. The writ application was opposed by the appellants on various grounds : viz (1) that the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy by way of an election petitioner and that election petitions having already been filed, this Court should not interfere in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction; (2) that the provisions of sec. 9(2) of the Act were only directory and not mandatory and the power of the Sarpanch to convene the meeting even after the expiry of 15 days from the date of his election did not come to an end; (3) that the new Panchayat commenced functioning on 22.12.60 and that the notice issued on 27.12.60 calling the special meeting on 4-l-1961 was clearly within 15 days from the commencement of the term of the new Panchayat. Learned single Judge observed that the writ application challenged the entire proceedings of the co-option of the non-petitioners and that the application was not directed against any

Click Here to Read the rest of this document