Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1332 (RAJ)

Mamta v. State of Rajasthan

2023-07-07

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
ORDER : (Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "i) the instant writ petition may kindly be ordered to be allowed and a writ, order or direction the impugned notice dated 14.06.2023 (Annex.2) and proposed no confidence motion dated 14.6.2023 (Annex.3) may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) the respondents may kindly be restrained from conducting any meeting in pursuance to proposed so called No Confidence Motion. iii) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner." 2. Mr. C.S. Kotwani, learned for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'), which provides for 15 days' notice before going ahead with 'No Confidence Motion'. 2.1 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is an elected Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti Patodi and is facing the 'No Confidence Motion', but the same is illegal because the statutory duration between the notice and 'No Confidence Motion' has not been adhered to. 2.2 Learned counsel also submits that the notices (Annexure-2 of the writ petition and Annexure R/1 of reply to the petition) both bear the same date i.e. 14.06.2023 and said to have been issued by the respondent-State regarding the same subject matter, but the same clearly indicate certain different reflections, thereby showing an apparent manipulation in the whole matter. 2.3 Learned counsel further submits that a Habeas Corpus Petition pertaining to certain Ward Members is pending before this Hon'ble Court, and thus, the pressure is being created upon the participants of the election to act in a particular manner. 3. Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State however, submits that Section 37 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994'), clearly prescribed for 7 days' time; the notice was of 14.06.2023 and the 'No Confidence Motion' could have been lawfully carried out on 23.06.2023; however, on count of the interim order, it could not take place. 3.1 Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. 3.1 Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Manish Patel, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the notice was issued and 'No Confidence Motion' was to take place, strictly in accordance with law, and thus, there was no illegality on the part of the respondents in initiating such exercise. 3.2 They also relied upon the order dated 13.05.2019 passed by this Court in Veena Dashora v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4986/2019, to contend that if there is any conflict between the Rules and the Act, the Act shall prevail over the Rules, and therefore, the notice of 7 days' is sufficient for carrying out the proceedings of 'No Confidence Motion'. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case along with the precedent law cited, this Court finds that the order passed in Veena Dashora's case (supra) is applicable; 7 days' clear notice is sufficient for conducting 'No Confidence Motion'. The statutory Rule 21 of the Rules of 1996 shall have to be read in so as to ensure compliance of Section 37 of the Act of 1994 as the Act carries more legislative strength vis-a-vis the Rule. 5. Since there is no other discrepancy pointed out on behalf of the petitioner except for the aforesaid; this Court is not inclined to allow the present petition; the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed with the No Confidence Motion in compliance of Section 37 (1)(iii) of the Act of 1994. 6. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that since 7 clear days have already passed, therefore, this Court may fix a date for 'No Confidence Motion' in pursuance of the notice (Annexure-2), the challenge to which has failed in the writ petition. 6.1. Thus, in the interest of justice and also while adhering to the spirit of Section 37(1)(iii) of the Act of 1994, the request of learned Additional Advocate General is accepted. The date of the notice (Annexure-2) for 'No Confidence Motion', which was 23.06.2023 and which could not be carried out due to the interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 21.06.2023, is rescheduled to 14.07.2023, while maintaining the same notice dated 14.06.2023. The petitioner stands informed in this regard. It shall however, be the duty of the respondents to inform rest of the Members. 7. The petitioner stands informed in this regard. It shall however, be the duty of the respondents to inform rest of the Members. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.