Lachhman vs Director, Panchayats, Haryana

M.L. Verma, J.

The material facts leading to the institution of this writ petition are, in brief, as under :

The election of Gram Panchayat, Sega, was held in December, 1971 and seven Panches, including the petitioner, had been then elected. Thereafter, the Panches elected the petitioner as Sarpanch. On a complaint alleged to have been made by four Panches against the petitioner, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Kaithal (hereinafter called the B.D.P.O.), Respondent 2, held an inquiry and forwarded the report to the Director of Panchayats. Thereupon, the Director of Panchayats accorded permission to call an extraordinary general meeting to pass noconfidence motion against the petitioner and authorised the B.D.P.O. to call such a meeting. The B.D.P.O. (Respondent 2), therefore, issued notice for holding extraordinary general meeting of the Gram Panchayat for considering the vote of noconfidence to be passed against the petitioner, on March 26, 1974. The petitioner, thereupon, instituted a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kaithal, for perpetual injunction restraining the holding of such a meeting. Along with the suit he moved an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, for ad interim injunction and the same was granted to him on March 25, 1974. It was for that reason that the aforesaid meeting for considering the vote of noconfidence to be moved against the petitioner could not be held on March 26, 1974. The ad interim injunction, referred to above, was vacated by the Subordinate Judge on September 9, 1974. Thereupon, the B.D.O.P. (Respondent 2) issued notice (hereinafter called the impugned notice) on October 16, 1974, for convening extraordinary general meeting of the Gram Panchayat on November 4, 1974, for considering vote of noconfidence to be moved against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner made this petition for writ of certiorari or any order or direction quashing the impugned notice, which was impeached being illegal, unjust and void on the grounds (1) that no inquiry had been held by the B.D.P.O. (Respondent 2) before he submitted the report to the Director of Panchayats and the later had no material on the basis of which the calling of extraordinary general meeting for purposes of considering vote of noconfidence against the petitioner was directed to be held, (2) that the petitioner had not been associated with any such inquiry, (3) that the Director of Panchayats had given permission for holding the extraordinary general meeting on March 26, 1974 but had not given any such permission for holding that meeting on November 4, 1974, and (4) that no meeting for considering the vote of no confidence to be moved against the petitioner could be held on November 4, 1974 since no such meeting had been held on March 26, 1974.

Five Panches have opposed the writ petition and Bhalla Ram has sworn affidavit by way of return on behalf of the said five Panches.

The broad facts, that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch in the month of December, 1971, that on a complaint made by five Panches according to the contesting Panches, and four Panches according to the petitioner, the B.D.P.O. had held an inquiry and recommended the case to the Director of Panchayats for granting permission to hold extraordinary general meeting for considering the noconfidence motion to be moved against the petitioner and the Director of Panchayats had duly accorded the permission for holding such a meeting; that initially the B.D.P.O. had issued notice that such an extraordinary general meeting would be held on March 26, 1974, but the same could not be held because the petitioner had instituted a suit and therein he had obtained ad interim injunction, restraining the holding of such a meeting, and that when the ad interim injunction, referred to above, was vacated on September 9, 1974, the B.D.P.O. had issued notice on October 16, 1974, for convening extraordinary general meeting on November 4, 1974, for purposes of considering the vote of noconfidence to be moved against the petitioner, are admitted.

In assailing the impugned notice, Mr. O.P. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions :

(1) That no inquiry had been held by the B.D.P.O. on the complaint made against the petitioner and that he (the petitioner) had never been associated with any such inquiry;

(2) that the Director of Panchayats had granted permission for holding the extraordinary general meeting on March 26, 1974, and that she had never accorded permission for holding such a meeting on November 4, 1974, and

(3) that the permission granted by the Director of Panchayats to hold the extraordinary general meeting for considering the vote of noconfidence to be moved against the petitioner on March 26,1974, had lapsed when the said meeting could not be held on account of the ad interim injunction obtained by the petitioner from the Civil Court and, as such, no such meeting could be held on November 4, 1974, or thereafter.

In my opinion, none of the said contentions is wellfounded. The relevant provision for holding extraordinary general meeting for removal of the sarpanch is contained in provisos 2nd and 3rd to subsection (2) of section 9 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act and the said provisos read as under :

"Provided further that subject to the approval of the Director, the Sarpanch may be removed from his office by a majority of the votes of the Panches constituting the Gram Panchayat at its extraordinary general meeting held with previous permission of the Director:

Provided further that no such meeting shall be convened before the expiry of six months from the date on which the Sarpanch took oath of his office and, if the Sarpanch is not removed at such meeting, no further meeting shall be convened for considering a similar proposal against the Sarpanch unless a period of at least six months intervenes between the last such meeting and the date on which such further meeting is convened :"

The only requirement of second proviso, reproduced above, is that there must be previous permission of the Director of Panchayats for holding extraordinary general meeting for removal of the Sarpanch. There is nothing in section 9, and I have not been referred to any provision contained in the Act, which makes it imperative that an inquiry has to be held by the B.D.P.O. for making a recommendation to the Director of Panchayats for according permission for holding such a meeting. It appears that the B.D.P.O. held inquiry with a view to find the identity of the Panches who made complaint against the petitioner. There is neither any provision in the Act nor in the Rules which requires the B.D.P.O. to associating the petitioner in such inquiry. Therefore in the absence of any provision for holding any inquiry, much less for associating the petitioner in such inquiry, by the B.D.P.O. for making recommendation to the Director of Panchayats for holding the extraordinary general meeting for considering the vote of noconfidence to be moved against the petitioner, the first contention of Mr. Goyal fails and the same is hereby repelled.

The permission was granted by the Director of Panchayats on January 21, 1974, for convening extraordinary general meeting to consider the vote of no confidence to be moved against the petitioner. It is contained in Annexure R3. It was nowhere mentioned by the Director of Panchayat that the said extraordinary general meeting should be held on March 26, 1974. The Director of Panchayats left it to the B.D.P.O. to fix a date for calling such a meeting and it was B.D.P.O. who had fixed March 26, 1974 as the date for such a meeting and had issued notice in that respect to the petitioner. The petitioner did not allow the said meeting to be held and secured an ad interim injunction from the Civil Court. Which, as pointed out above, was later on vacated on September 9, 1974. Therefore, it was on vacation of the said ad interim injunction that B.D.P.O. issued second notice to the petitioner intimating that the extraordinary general meeting for considering the vote of noconfidence to be moved against him would be held on November 4, 1974 (Annexure P.1). The Director of Panchayats, as indicated above, did not fix any date when the extraordinary general meeting, referred to above should be held. She had left it to the discretion of the B.D.P.O. Therefore, the second contention of Mr. Goyal is not borne out by the record.

I do not think that the permission granted by the petitioner of Panchayats on January 21, 1974, for holding the extraordinary general meeting was limited to any period. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Goyal that the said permission granted by the Director of Panchayats had lapsed simply because the meeting fixed by the B.D.P.O. on March 26, 1974 could not be held because of the ad interim injunction, is unintelligible and is devoid of any force and the same is overruled. Since no meeting had been held on March 26, 1974, the proviso that there should be interval of six months between the first meeting and the 2nd meeting, as required by the 3rd proviso, does not apply. Further, there was interval of six months between the first meeting proposed to be held on March 26, 1974 and the second meeting proposed to be held on November 4, 1974. Since no extraordinary general meeting has so far been held and no vote of noconfidence has yet been passed by majority against the petitioner, the question of approval of that Director of Panchayats for his removal as required by the second proviso, does not arise.

At one stage of arguments, Mr. Goyal argued that there had been violation of the principles of natural justice because the petitioner had not been given notice of the inquiry held by the B.D.P.O. Since as already said above, there is no provision of law which required the B.D.P.O. to give such notice and the inquiry was not held by the B.D.P.O. against the irregularities or illegalities alleged to have been committed by the Sarpanch but appears to have been held simply to verify as to whether the complainants were really the Panches, I do not think that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice in not associating the petitioner in the inquiry held by the B.D.P.O.

For the foregoing reasons, I find that there is no merit in this petition and I dismiss the same with costs. Counsel''s fee to be assessed at Rs. 200/.