KAN SINGH, J.—I have before me a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution jointly filed by the three petitioners who were Panchas of the Gram Panchayat Pingora in the district of Bharatpur and by it they seek to question the validity of an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bharatpur dated 25-4-67, by which he held that the petitioners had ceased to be the Panchas of the Gram Panchayat on account of their failure to attend five consecutive meetings of the Gram Panchayat. The relevant facts may shortly be stated as follows:

2. The petitioners were elected as Panchas of the Gram Panchayat as a result of the elections held in 1964. According to them, the Sar Panch was inimically disposed towards them and he wanted to get rid of them as Panchas. They state that the Sar Panch, therefore, manipulated the proceedings of the Panchayat and eventually endeavoured to bring about the vacation of their seats on baseless grounds. According to them, they had never failed to attend five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat said to have been held on 9-3-65, 26-3-65, 9-4-65, 26 4-65 and 9-5-65. When they came to know on 18-5-65 that on 17-5-65 they had been ordered to be removed, they made an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bharatpur on 18-5-65 purporting to be under rule 12(5)(6) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961, hereinafter to be referred as the "Rules". They complained that they had attended the meetings of the Gram Panchayat on 19-3-65, 26-3-65 and 26-4 65 and yet it had been taken that they were absent at five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat so as to have vacated their seats. They also made grievance of the fact that on 9-4 65 there was no meeting of the Gram Panchayat though they were informed of such a meeting, In short, their case was that they had not failed to attend the five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat as mentioned by the Sarpanch. They, therefore, asked for a proper enquiry to be made and then declared that the petitioners had not vacated their seats. On this complaint the Sub-Divisional Officer held an enquiry and he came to the conclusion that the petitioners had, in fact, absented themselves at five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat and consequently they had ceased to be members of the Panchayat by virtue of the provisions of sec. 17(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, hereinafter to be referred as the "Act". During the course of enquiry before the Sub-Divisional Officer the petitioners approached the Collector for transferring their case to another officer as they had no faith in the Sub-Divisional Officer who was conducting the enquiry. No action, however, was taken by the Collector on the petitioners application besides noting thereon that the Sub-Divisional Officer should show the papers to the Collector before passing the final orders.

3. In challenging the validity of the order of the Sub Divisional Officer it is contended by the petitioners that the provisions of rule 12 of the Rules were not complied with by the Panchayat inasmuch as after the fourth meeting a notice stating therein that inspite of due notice the petitioners had not attended the four immediately preceding meetings held on the various dates, so that in the event of their failure to attend the fifth meeting of which due notice shall be received by them, in due course their seats shall become vacant, had not been given. They maintained that the notice of the fifth meeting which was held to have been given by the Sub Divisional Officer did not conform to the requirements of R. 12 (1) as the two distinct acts, (i) informing them of their failure to attend the preceding four meetings and their liability to vacate the seats in the event of the failure to attend the next meeting; and (ii) the intimation for the fifth meeting were both rolled up in one notice. Such a composite notice, according to the petitioners, did not meet the requirements of the rule. The petitioners urged th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document