Rattan Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh etc.

Chet Ram Thakur, J.—Petitioner along with Respondents 5 to 13 was elected as a Panch to the Gram Panchayat Taksal in the elections held on 27th October, 1972. There were in all 13 Panches who had been elected. The first meeting of the Panchayat was called for 20th November, 1972, for administration of oath to the Panches and also for conducting elections to the offices of Pradhan and Up-Pradhan. On that day 12 Panches were present and oath was administered to them. Petitioner as also Respondent No. 13 were elected as Pradhan and Up-Pradhan respectively. It is averred that some-how oath could not be administered to the Pradhan and Up-Pradhan and this oath was administered only on 19th March, 1974. Since no oath could be administered to the Petitioner and Respondent 13, therefore, the Respondents 5 to 12 elected their own Pradhan and Up-Pradhan in a meeting convened by them. On 16th February, 1974, the rival group, i.e. Respondents 5 to 12 gave a notice of vote of no-confidence against the Petitioner and Respondent 13 and also called for a meeting within 15 days from the issue of the notice. Copies of the notice were sent to the Panchayat Officer, etc. The Panchayat Officer convened a meeting for 19th March, 1974, for administering oath, but a letter, dated 18th March, 1974, was issued by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Solan, acting as Deputy Commissioner, to the Block Development Officer, Dharampur, directing him not to recognise the newly elected Pradhan and Up-Pradhan and further to administer oath to the previously elected Pradhan and Up-Pradhan. Annexure PA is the letter issued by the D.D. & P.O. in continuation of his letter dated 21st February, 1974, whereby he had previously also directed the B.D.O. to administer oath to the Petitioner and Respondent 13. The vote of no-confidence was held to be irregular by the D.D. & P.O. by this very letter, Annexure PA. Thereafter it so happened that Respondents 5 to 12 commenced convening meetings of their own and passed resolutions in the absence of the Petitioner and Respondent 13. The meetings convened by the Petitioner and Respondent 13 were not attended by the Respondents 5 to 12 and they had always been absenting themselves, as is given by the Petitioner in Annexure PG. Respondents 5 to 12 also asked the Petitioner to resign but the latter refused to comply with their wishes. Thereafter Respondents 5 to 12 filed a CWP. 88/74 for a direction to be issued to the Petitioner and Respondent 13 not to interfere in the working of the Panchayat convened by Respondents 5 to 12. Later on that writ petition was withdrawn on 9th April, 1974. After withdrawal of the petition some record which had been taken over from the Petitioner and Respondent 13 was handed over to them. It appears, Respondents 5 to 12 again passed another no-confidence motion on 19th September, 1974 against the Petitioner and Respondent 13 without convening any regular meeting. On the basis of that the Respondent No. 3, i.e. B.D.O. referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, who vide order, Annexure PD, dated 3rd October, 1974, authorised the B.D.O. to take over charge from the Petitioner and Respondent 13 and it is how the Petitioner has moved this petition under Article 226 for quashing the order, Annexure PD. He has also prayed that a direction be issued to Respondents 1 to 3 to recognise him and Respondent 13 as Pradhan and Up-Pradhan with a further prayer to restrain Respondents 5 to 12 from interfering with the functioning by the Petitioner and Respondent 13 as Pradhan and Up-Pradhan. Further, he has prayed that a mandamus be issued to the Respondents 1 to 3 to take action against Respondents 5 to 12 for absenting themselves from the meeting of the Panchayat convened by the Petitioner as Pradhan.

This writ petition was admitted on 11th October, 1974. It is apparent from the order that the learned Advocate-General accepted notice for Respondents 1 to 3 and he prayed for and was allowed time upto 29th October, 1974, for filing return to the writ petition. The last portion of the order which is relevant for the present purposes was that the writ petition and the miscellaneous petition will be listed for hearing on 6th November, 1974. It appears that return to the main petition as also reply to the CMP were filed on 1st November, 1974, without any application having been filed for condonation of the delay in filing the return, which admittedly were filed after the time allowed by the Court. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued the case but the Advocate General was not present. Since there was no application for condonation of delay nor the same had been condoned, therefore, this reply filed to the main petition as also to the CMP shall be ignored.

The point for consideration in this petition is whether this order, Annexure PD, passed by Respondent No. 2 is a legal and a valid order. In order to determine this point it is necessary to consider whether this no-confidence motion passed by the other Panches could validly be done or not. If the reply to this is in the negative then it would necessarily follow that the order passed by Respondent No. 2 is null and void and is liable to be set aside.

It is clear that the Petitioner as also Respondent 13 were elected as Panches to the Gram Panchayat Taksal in the elections held on 27th October, 1972. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968, (hereinafter called the Act) the members of the Executive Committee of each Gram Sabha shall elect from amongst themselves the Chairman and Vice-Chairman also called the Pradhan and Up-Pradhan, of the Executive Committe by majority vote in the prescribed manner. Although I have already stated that the return may be ignored and even if it may be taken into consideration, it is admitted that the Petitioner and Respondent 13 were admittedly elected as Pradhan and Up-Pradhan respectively. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act before entering upon their office, the Panches are required to take an oath in the form prescribed in Schedule I. Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act reads as:

(3) The Gram Panchayat may remove the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan from his office by a majority vote at any time provided vote of non-confidence is not sponsored within one year from the date of his or her taking of oath of such office and provided further that no next vote of non-confidence shall be moved within an interval of one year of the previous non-confidence motion.

This pre-supposes that after the Panches have elected a Pradhan and an Up-Pradhan from amongst themselves they have also to take oath of their offices as such before entering upon their offices. It further envisages that no vote of non-confidence can be sponsored within one year from the date of his or her taking of oath of such office. In the instant case, as is clear from Annexure PA, the Petitioner and Respondent 13 had not been administered any oath rightly or wrongly till 19th March, 1974. Although actions taken by them during this period as Pradhan and Up-Pradhan may be illegal but we are not concerned with that. They were admittedly given oath as is apparent from Annexure PA on the 19th March, 1974, and, therefore, no such motion of non-confidence could be sponsored till 19th March, 1975, as is contemplated by Sub-section (3) quoted above. If that is so the action taken by Respondent No. 2 by Annexure PD is wholly wrong and illegal. Further, it would be apparent that Respondents 5 to 12 had passed their vote of no-confidence on 4th March, 1974, whereupon the D.D.& P.O. directed the B.D.O. to administer oath to the Petitioner and Respondent 13 and also held the action of Respondents 5 to 12 as irregular. Thereafter what happened is that the Respondents 5 to 12 passed another vote of no-confidence on 19th September, 1974, and which was also within one year from the date of the earlier no-confidence motion. Therefore, on that account also the vote of no-confidence sponsored by Respondents 5 to 12 was wholly against the provisions of law and if the very basis was wrong then the order, Annexure PD, which was a sequel to that also cannot be sustained. Therefore, what follows is that the order of the Respondent No. 2 is illegal and is liable to be quashed.

The second prayer of the Petitioner was for a mandamus to be issued to Respondents 1 to 3 to recognise the Petitioner as also Respondent 13 as Pradhan and Up-Pradhan respectively. I think this a corollary to prayer No. 1, which already stands granted and, therefore, they are also entitled to a direction to be issued to Respondents 1 to 3 for their recognition as Pradhan and Up-Pradhan respectively.

The third prayer is that Respondents 5 to 12 be restrained from doing such acts as are derogatory to the interest of the panchayat. This also in my opinion is a corollary to point No. 1 and this also must succeed.

The fourth prayer is that Respondents 1 to 3 be directed to take action against Respondents 5 to 12, as contemplated u/s 54 of the Act for not attending the meetings of the Gram Panchayat under the President ship of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has made averments about this in para 16. It is also apparent from the petition that he has filed an application, copy of which is Annexure F, on 30-8-1974 before Respondent No. 3 for taking action against Respondents 5 to 12, but so far he has not taken any action. Section 54 of the Act provides for suspension and removal of Panches of Gram Panchayat. Sub-section (2)(c) of Section 54 provides for suspension or removal of such Panches, who without reasonable cause absent themselves for more than two consecutive months from meetings of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the Petitioner''s prayer for taking action under the provision is quite legitimate especially when he has been able to establish from Annexure PG, which fact remains uncontro-verted because the Respondents 5 to 12 did not file any return, that Respondents 5 to 12 remained absent from several meetings as indicated therein. So, action can be taken u/s 54(2)(c) of the Act.

These were the only points argued. The net result, therefore, is that the Petitioner succeeds and the order, Annexure PD, passed by Respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. The Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to recognise the Petitioner as also Respondent 13, who is a proforma Respondent, as Pradhan and Up-Pradhan respectively. Further, Respondents 5 to 12 are restrained from interfering with the functioning of the Petitioner and Respondent 13 as Pradhan and Up-Pradhan respectively. A further direction is also issued to Respondents 1 to 3 that they shall expedite action on the application, Annexure F against Respondents 5 to 12.

In the circumstances of the case I allow costs of Rs. 200/- against the Respondents 1 to 3.