Rajasthan High Court
Gupta, J.
Bhawani Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1531 of 1971
Decided On : April 07, 1977
2. The petitioner raised the following three objections before the Tehsildar, Sirohi, who presided over the aforesaid meeting of the Panchayat, convened to consider the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner, namely :—
(1) two of the Panchas, Durjan Singh and Gulaba had ceased to hold the office of Panchas and as such, they were not eligible to take part in the proceedings of the Panchayat and they should have been excluded from the said meeting held on September 13, 1971;
(2) under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the motion of no-confidence against a Sarpanch must be carried by majority of not less than 3/4th of the total number of Panchas, including the Sarpanch and as the total number of members of the Gram Panchayat, Sildar was 14 the minimum number of Panchas who should have voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence so that the same could be carried, should have been at least 11, As only ten Panchas had voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner, it could not be declared to have been carried ; and
(3) the notice to move the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner was neither addressed to nor it was delivered to the Deputy District Develop-ment Officer by the eight Panchas, as required by sub rule (1) of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and as such the said notice was illegal and invalid.
3. All these three submissions made by the petitioner were held to be untenable by the Tehsildar, who wrote a rather well considered order rejecting these objections. In the present writ petition, which has been filed by the petitioner in this Court challenging the aforesaid decision of the Tehsildar, Sirohi holding that the motion of no-confidence was carried against the petitioner, the very same three grounds which were urged by the petitioner before the Tehsildar have been reiterated. I shall presently consider the said three grounds in seriatim.
4. As regards the first contention, it was argued by the learned counsel that two of the Panchas namely, Durjan Singh and Gulaba did not attend four consecutive meetings
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.