Honble PATIL, J.–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2). The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Milakpur in the year 1995. According to him, he was functioning as Sarpanch in the interest and welfare of the Panchayat as well as the public at large of the area. The members who were opposed to the petitioner, gave a proposal to the respondent No. 2 for moving vote of `No Confidence against him. The respondent No.2, namely, the Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Alwar, issued a notice on 23.12.97 informing that a meeting had been convened on 15.01.98 for consideration of `No Confidence motion against the petitioner. As many as 8 allegations were made against the petitioner, on the basis of which a vote of `No Confidence was sought to be moved. It is not necessary to give the details of the allegations in order to decide the controversy raised.

(3). The petitioner had informed the Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti, Ramgarh, that the three Panchas, namely, Smt. Premawati w/o Sukha (ii) Gopi, Panch, Ward No.3 and (iii) Swaroop Singh, Panch, Ward No.9 had incurred disqualification on account of birth of their third issue. He had also informed that Shri Prabhu Dayal, Up-Sarpanch, was not attending the meetings of the Gram Panchayat for the last one year. Shri Ish Kumar, Panch from Ward No.11 had resigned and the letter of resignation was sent for acceptance to the Panchayat Samiti. Thus, the five Panchas having incurred disqualification were not entitled to either to propose to move vote of `No Confidence against the petitioner or to participate in the meeting in which vote of `No Confidence was to be moved. The respondent No.2 could not convene a meeting on the proposal so made by the Panchas who had incurred disqualification or who had ceased to be members of Gram Panchayat. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the very notice dated, 23.12.97 (Annex.1), convening the meeting on 15.01.98 for the purpose of consideration of motion of `No Confidence against him and sought for quashing the same. A further direction is sought to the respondents that without determining the question as to disqualification of five Panchas, named above, no meeting for consideration of `No Confidence should be convened.

(4). Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his arguments, reiterated the grounds raised in the writ petition.

(5). The short point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the members of Gram Panchayat become ineligible and cease to be members whenever the allegations of disqualifications are made and pending determination as to whether a member has become disqualified or not u/Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati

Ram Act, 1994 (for short the Act)?

(6). Under Section 19 of the Act, every person registered as a voter in the list of voters of a Panchayati Raj Institution shall be qualified for election as a Panch or, as the case may be, of such Panchayati Raj Institution unless such a person is disqualified under various clauses enumerated in the said section including one that a person has more than two children. As per Section 39 of the Act, subject to the provisions of Sec. 40, a member of Panchayati Raj Institution shall not be eligible to continue to be such member if he-

(a) is or becomes subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Sec. 19; or

(b) has absented himself from three consecutive meetings of the Panchayati Raj Institution concerned without giving information in writing to such Panchayati Raj Institution; or

(c) is removed from the membership; or

(d) resigns from the membership; or

(e) - - - - - - - - - -

(f) - - - - - - - - - -

Sub-Section (2) of Sec. 39 reads :

``(2) Whenever it is made to appear to the competent authority that a member has become ineligible to continue to be a member for any of the reasons specified in sub-sec. (1), the competent authority may, after giving him an opportunity of being heard, declared him to have become so ineligible and thereupon h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document