JOSHI, J.—The petitioner in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeks an appropriate order, writ or direction for quashing the proceedings of the meeting dated 24th of April, 1975 and further declaring that no no-confidence motion against him was passed in the said meeting and that the respondents be restrained from interfering in the discharge of his duties as Sarpanch.

2. There is a Gram Panchayat known as Gram Panchayat of village Kayamser Dhandhoori in District Jhunjhunu having total strength of twelve members. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Panchayat. According to the petitioner the meeting of the said Gram Panchayat had been taking place at the village Kayamser Dhandhoori. A no-confidence motion against the petitioner was delivered to the concerned Additional District Development Officer, hereinafter to be referred to as the ADDO with a proposal expressing want of confidence in the petitioner. The said ADDO by his order dated 7th of April, 1975, appointed the Tehsildar Jhunjhunu to preside over the meeting to be held in respect of no-confidence motion. Later on the ADDO issued a notice fixing the date for consideration of the no-confidence motion as 24th of April, 1975. On 24th of April, 1975, the Niab Tehsildar Jhunjhunu was acting as Tehsildar Incharge as office of the Tehsildar was lying vacant on account of the transfer of the Tehsildar. On 24th of April, 1975, the Niab Tehsildar (Tehsildar Incharge, Jhunjhunu) held the meeting at a place which according to the petitioner was different from the usual place of meeting of the Panchayat. An objection was raised by the petitioner to the change of venue but the same was turned down by the Tehsiidar Incharge and the meeting was held in a room adjacent to Piao. It is alleged that the petitioner did not attend the meeting throughout and that only nine Panchas were present in that meeting and that two of the Panchas, namely, respondents Nos. 6 and 9 were not present in it. The meeting was presided over by the Tehsildar Incharge and the nine Panchas present in the meeting voted for no-confidence motion—which fact is now disputed by the petitioner. It is further said that the respondents Nos. 6 and 9 had proceeded to the usual place of venue of the meeting so they could not attend the meeting. The petitioner has further alleged that Shri Chatura Ram respondent No. 12 and Malji respondent No. 11 had informed the petitioner that they had actually voted against the no-confidence motion but their votes were wrongly counted by the Presiding Officer for the motion and the petitioner has along with the writ petition submitted their affidavits to that effect. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the no-confidence motion and the proceedings of the meeting in that behalf in his writ petition mainly on two grounds :

(1) The proceedings of the meeting in respect of no-confidence motion are wholly illegal as the venue of the meeting was changed and this depriving two Panchas from attending the meeting.

(2) The Tehsildar Incharge was not a full fledged Tehsildar and was never appointed by the ADDO to preside over the meeting nor could he preside over the meeting as he could dischrge the routine functions in the absence of the Tehsildar. The meeting was, therefore, wholly invalid and no-confidence motion if at all passed was wholly invalid.

3. The petition has been opposed by the respondents Nos 5, 7,8, 10, 11, 13,

14 and 15, who have submitted a joint reply. In the reply it has been firstly said that no venue of the meeting was changed as alleged by the petitioner. Secondly, the meeting was presided over by a competent officer who was acting as Tehsildar Incharge.

4. A joint reply has also been filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, the ADDO Jhunjhunu and the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Officiating Tehsildar Jhunjhunu. While traversing the allegations of the petitioner in regard to the change of venue. The respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have further stated tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document