Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 91 (RAJ)

Hemlata Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-12

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - These two writ petitions relating to the motion expressing want of confidence in the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Badi, Tehsil-Girwa, District-Udaipur, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Badi in the month of February,2010. Before entering upon her duties as Sarpanch, the petitioner took oath on 17.2.10. The directly elected members of the Gram Panchayat delivered a written notice of intention to make the motion expressing want of confidence in the petitioner as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat with the copy of proposed motion to the competent authority in the prescribed form on 27.1.12. The competent authority forwarded copy of the notice together with the copy of the proposed motion to the Sarpanch, Up Sarpanch and Members of Gram Panchayat and convened the meeting for consideration of motion vide notice dated 31.1.12. The meeting was scheduled to be held on 17.2.12. 3. As per the provisions of sub-section (13) of Section 37 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ( for short "the Act"), no notice of motion is permissible to be made within two years of assumption of the office by a Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of the Panchayati Raj Institution. The petitioner had assumed the charge of the office on 17.2.10 and thus, the notice of motion delivered prior to expiry of the period of two years, being in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (13) of Section 37, the legality thereof is questioned by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition No.1352/12. 4. On 15.2.12, while admitting the writ petition preferred as aforesaid, this court passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner in the following terms: "In the meanwhile and until further orders, the respondents are directed not to give effect to the motion of no confidence initiated under the notice Annex.4 dated 31.1.2012." 5. In compliance of the interim order passed by this court, the meeting convened by the competent authority for consideration of motion was not held. In the meantime, after expiry of the period of two years, the elected members moved yet another motion vide notice dated 24.2.12. Accordingly, the competent authority convened the meeting for consideration of motion vide notice dated 6.3.12. 6. In the meantime, after expiry of the period of two years, the elected members moved yet another motion vide notice dated 24.2.12. Accordingly, the competent authority convened the meeting for consideration of motion vide notice dated 6.3.12. 6. The legality of the notice of intention to make the motion dated 24.2.12 and the notice dated 6.3.12 issued by the competent authority convening the meeting for consideration of the motion has been questioned by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition No.2331/12, on the ground that as per the mandate of provisions of sub-section (12) of Section 37, the second motion brought before the expiry of period of one year from the date of the meeting for consideration of first motion, is illegal. 7. On 21.3.12, while issuing notices of the second writ petition preferred by the petitioner as aforesaid, an interim order was passed by this court in favour of the petitioner in the following terms: "In the meanwhile, the respondents may proceed with the meeting convened for consideration of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner herein, in pursuance of notice dated 6.3.2012 (Annex.10), however, the result thereof shall not be declared till the next date." 8. The interim orders passed as aforesaid are operative till this date. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that admittedly, the first motion was brought before the expiry of period of two years and therefore, in view of the bar contained in sub-section (13) of Section 37, the same could not have been entertained by the competent authority. Learned counsel submitted that the proceedings taken by the competent authority on the first motion made as aforesaid, deserves to be quashed for this reason alone. 10. Regarding the subsequent motion, learned counsel submitted that as per the mandate of provisions of sub-section (12) of Section 37, if a motion is not carried as per the provisions of sub-section (11) of Section 37 or if the meeting could not be held for want of quorum, no subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same Chairperson could be made until after expiration of one year from the date of such meeting and therefore the second motion made and the notice issued by the competent authority convening the meeting for consideration of the motion also deserves to be quashed. 11. 11. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the motion made vide notice dated 27.1.12 being within the period of two years of the assumption of the office by the petitioner as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat could not have been entertained by the competent authority, keeping in view the provisions of subsection (13) of Section 37 of the Act but then, the subsequent motion made after expiry of the period of two years, cannot be considered to be a second motion within the meaning of subsection (12) of Section 37 of the Act inasmuch as, pursuant to earlier motion made prior to expiry of the period of two years, the meeting was not held and it cannot be said that the motion has failed. Accordingly, it is submitted that the result of the voting on the motion made vide notice dated 24.2.12 deserves to be declared. 12. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 13. The controversy raised in these two petitions rolls around sub-section (12) and (13) of Section 37 of the Act, which may be beneficially quoted: "(12) If the motion is not carried as aforesaid or if the meeting could not be held for want of quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson shall be made until after the expiration of one year from the date of such meeting. (13) No notice of motion under this section shall be made within two years of the assumption of office by a Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson." 14. Indisputably, the petitioner assumed the charge of office of the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat on 17.2.10 and she completed two years in the office on 16.2.12 and thus, as per the mandate of provisions of sub-section (13) of Section 37 of the Act, no notice of motion could have been made by the elected members of the Gram Panchayat on 27.1.12 i.e. before the expiry of the period of two years of the assumption of the office by the petitioner. Thus, the motion made vide notice dated 27.1.12 and the notice dated 31.1.12 issued by the competent authority convening the meeting deserves to be quashed. 15. Thus, the motion made vide notice dated 27.1.12 and the notice dated 31.1.12 issued by the competent authority convening the meeting deserves to be quashed. 15. Coming to the subsequent motion, it is to be noticed that the motion made vide notice dated 27.1.12 is not considered to be motion made as per the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the respondents were restrained by this court from convening the meeting pursuant to the notice dated 31.1.12 and admittedly, no meeting was at all held for consideration of the motion and thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the motion made was not carried in terms of the provisions of sub-section (11) of Section 37 of the Act or that the meeting could not be held for want of quorum. In this view of the matter, the provisions of sub-section (12) of Section 37 are not attracted in the matter. In the considered opinion of this court, the subsequent motion made has to be treated to be the first motion made after expiration of two years of the assumption of the office by the petitioner as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and therefore, the motion made and the meeting convened for consideration of the motion cannot be said to be illegal. 16. In the result, the Writ Petition No.1352/12 is allowed. The notice dated 27.1.12 delivered by the elected members expressing their intention to make the motion and the notice dated 31.3.12 issued by the competent authority convening the meeting for consideration of the motion are quashed. The Writ Petition No.2331/12 preferred by the petitioner questioning the legality of the motion made vide notice dated 24.2.12 and the notice dated 6.3.12 issued by the competent authority convening the meeting for consideration of the motion is dismissed. The competent authority is directed to declare the result of the voting on the motion pursuant to the meeting held on 22.3.12 forthwith. No order as to costs.Petition No. 135282012/petition No. 2331/2012. *******