JUDGMENT 1. - In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners pray for quashing order, Annexure-6 dated May 4, 1989 passed by respondent No. 2, the Chief Executive Officer and Secretary. Zila Parishad and directions to him to pass an appropriate order under rule 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat (General) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as "the rules"). The petitioners are the Gram Panchayat and its Sarpanch. 2. As per averments disclosed in the petition, respondents No. 3 and 4, namely, Prem Chand Jain and Pratap Kumhar are the elected Ward Panchas of Gram Panchayat, Peepla, district Jaipur. They were elected in June, 1988. These two respondents absented from five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat, which took place in August, September and October, 1988 as detailed out in para 3 of the petition, without giving information in writing to the Panchayat. They, therefore, ceased to be Panchas and their seats became vacant. The petitioner Panchayat passed resolution, Annexure-4 on 30-11-1988 under Section 17 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act'); and forwarded a copy of the resolution together with the relevant record to the Additional District Development Officer, Jaipur with its recommendation. The Additional District Development Officer is also the Chief Executive Officer and Secretary Zila Parishad, Jaipur (respondent No. 2). The Additional District Development Officer, Japur by his letter dated 23-12-1988, Annexure-5 called for further material from the petitioner Panchayat. Thereafter, he passed the impugned order, Annexure-6 on 4-5-1989 declining to declare the seats to have become vacant as required under rule 12 (5) of the Rules. The Panchayat and its Sarpanch have now come up to this court and pray for the reliefs mentioned at the very out set. The ground taken against the impugned order is that the Additional District Development Officer should have decided the matter in accordance with the provisions of rule 12 (5) of the Rules. Simply because the Panchayat passed the resolution, Annexure-4 for the removal of respondents No. 3 and 4, the resolution does not become bad because it was passed under Section 17 (2) of the Act. Simply because the words "PANCH PAD SE PRATHAK KIYA JATA HAIN" have been used in the resolution, Annexure-4 the resolution does not fall to the ground. 3. The petition was contested and opposed by the respondents No. 3 and 4, namely, Prem Chand and Pratap Kumhar. Simply because the words "PANCH PAD SE PRATHAK KIYA JATA HAIN" have been used in the resolution, Annexure-4 the resolution does not fall to the ground. 3. The petition was contested and opposed by the respondents No. 3 and 4, namely, Prem Chand and Pratap Kumhar. The defences taken by them are that the entire proceedings of the Panchayat are faked fictitious and no meetings of the Panchayat on the dates mentioned in para 3 of the writ petition took place. They never absented themselves in any meeting of the panchayat. 4. I have heard Shri Narendra Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 and the learned Dy. Government Advocate Shri M. Rafique. 5. It would be useful here to reproduce the impugned order Annexure-6- dk;kZy; ftyk ifj"kn t;iqj fnukad%& 04&05&89 dzekd%& fti@ipk@89@94 ljiap] xzke iapk;r ihiyk i0l0 Qkxh ftyk t;iqjA fo"k;%& Jh izse pUn o izrki okMZ iapksa dh iapk;r dh cSBd esa Hkkx ysus gsrqA mijksDr fo"k; esa ys[k gS fd vkius Jh izse pUn o izrki okMZ iapksa dks jkt0 iapk;r vf/kfu;e 1953 dh /kkjk 17 ( 2 ) ds rgr iapk;r dh yxkrkj cSBdksa esa vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k iap in ls i`Fkd djus dh dk;Zokgh dh gS] tks voS/kkfud gS] D;ksafd vkidks iap in ls gVkus dh 'kfDr;kWa ugha gSA vr% vkidks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd nksuksa okMZ iapksa dh iapk;r dh cSBd esa lfEefyr dj lwpuk bl dk;kZy; esa fHktok;sa] ,oe~ fu;ekuqlkj fu;fer cSBdsa iapk;r dk;kZy; ij djsA g0@& eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh ,oa lfpo ftyk ifj"kn] t;iqjA 6. In its resolution, Annexure-4, the Panchayat categorically stated that the respondents No. 3 and 4 absented themselves on the five consecutive meetings mentioned therein and they were, therefore, removed from the Punchayat under Section 17(2) of the Act. 7. The pertinent question, which arises for consideration is whether the resolution. Annexure-4 became bad and tainted simply because the words "PANCH PAD SE PRATHAK KIYA JATA HAIN" have been used therein. It may be mentioned here that resolution, Annexure-4 was passed under Section 17(2) of the Act with a categorical statement therein that respondents No. 3 and 4 had absented themselves from five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat without giving information in writing. It is abundantly clear from a reading of Annexure-4 that the resolution was passed under Section 17(2) of the Act. 8. It is abundantly clear from a reading of Annexure-4 that the resolution was passed under Section 17(2) of the Act. 8. Section 17 (2) of the Act reads as under : "Sub section (2)-This sub-section deals with the situation where any Panch, Sarpanch or Up Sarpanch does not attend five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat, without information in writing to the said Panchayat. Under the sub section he shall cease to be such Panch, Sarpanch or Up Sarpanch and his seat shall become vacant. Procedure is prescribed under Rule 12 of the General Rules of 1961 for taking proper action but the provision of the Section is mandatory and where it is proved beyond doubt that the person concerned has so absented, his seat shall become vacant." 9. The result flowing from sub-section (2) is that if a Panch absents himself as mentioned therein, he shall cease to be the Panch and his seat shall become vacant. The consequence flowing from sub-section (2) is automatic. 10. In Gandharva v. A.D.D.O. ( AIR 1980 Raj. 229 ) it was held by a Division Bench of this court that the absence of Panch from five consecutive meetings results in his disqualification under Section 17 (2) and this disqualification is automatic. 11. Rule 12 of the Rules lays down a procedure to give effect to the provisions of Section 17(2) of the Act. Sub-rules (1) to (4) speak about the procedure meant for the Panchayat in a case where it proceeds under section 17(2) of the Act. Sub rule (4) lays down that after the Panchayat passes a resolution to the effect that a Panch etc. has remained absent on five consecutive meetings, it shall forward a copy of the resolution together with the record of notices etc. to the Additional District Development Officer. Sub-rule (5) under which the Additional District Development Officer is to proceed, runs as under:- "On receipt of the record referred to in clause (4) the Additional District Development Officer may upon perusing the record and considering the recommendation of the Panchayat and after making such further enquiry as he may consider necessary and after giving the absentee an opportunity of being heard, declare such seat to have become vacant or make such other order as he may think proper in the circumstances of the case." 12. It is amply clear from a bare reading of sub-rule(5) that the Additional District Development Officer on receipt of the record from the Panchayat under sub-rule (5) may hold an inquiry as he may consider and thereafter pass an appropriate order. 13. In the instant case the Additional District Development Officer adopted a strange procedure and passed the impugned order, which cannot be supported on any ground. He declined to declare the seats of respondents No. 3 and 4 vacant simply on the ground that the Panchayat had no powers or authority to remove them. As stated earlier, the disqualification on account of the absence is automatic and the resolution, Annexure-4 does not become void or bad only on account of using the words that the respondents No. 3 and 4 are removed from the office of Panchas. The Additional District Development Officer should have examined the whole record and found out as to what was meant by resolution, Annexure-4. The resolution, Annexure-4 was passed on the ground that respondents No. 3 and 4 remained absent in five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat and they were therefore, removed. Here the word 'removal' in the context it was used signifies that what the Panchayat meant was to declare the seats vacant. The Additional District Development Officer took a hypertechnical view of the entire matter and declined to pass a proper order on flimsy grounds. He should have passed a proper order keeping in view the provisions of sub-rule (5) of rule 12 of the Rules. The impugned order cannot be supported on any ground. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 made an attempt to show that they did not remain absent in the meetings nor the meetings as mentioned in para 3 of the petition were held by the Panchayat. As such the impugned order should be upheld and the resolution, Annexure-4 should be quashed. I am unable to agree with him for the simple reason that the contention raised relates to the complicated question of fact. Whether meetings were held and respondents No. 3 and 4 remained absent without giving information are essential questions of fact and the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction These questions of fact can be properly decided by the Additional District Development Officer under rule 12(5) of the Rules. Whether meetings were held and respondents No. 3 and 4 remained absent without giving information are essential questions of fact and the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction These questions of fact can be properly decided by the Additional District Development Officer under rule 12(5) of the Rules. He is entitled to hold an inquiry as he may consider necessary in this respect It is still open to the respondents to agitate this question of fact before the Additional District Development Officer. 15. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order, Annexure-6 dated May 4, 1989 is quashed. The respondent No.2, Chief Executive Officer (A.D.D.O.) and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jaipur is hereby directed to proceed under rule 12(5) of the Rules and pass an order thereunder. 16. No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******