LALBHAI B PATEL Vs. MEHSANA DISTRICT PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by two allegedly vigilant members of the respondent no. 1-District Panchayat. They have filed this petition for the relief of issuance of a writ directing the respondents nos. 1 and 2 to follow the procedure laid in sec. 131(5)(d) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act and to determine in which committees the respondents nos. 2 to 9 are to retain their seats and further to hold the election for the Committees in which their seats become vacant by virtue of the provisions of sec. 131(5)(a) of the said Act.

(2.) In order to understand the controversy the provisions of sec. 131 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act are required to be referred to. Under sec. 13(1) the District Panchayat is required to constitute the Committees namely an Executive Committee; A social Justice Committee; An Education Committee; A Production and Cooperation Committee; A Public Health Committee; An Appeal Committee and a Finance Review Committee. Under sub-sec.(2) a provision is made enabling the District Panchayat to constitute one or more committees to execute any work or scheme decided upon by the District Panchayat or to inquire into and report to the District Panchayat on matters which the panchayat may refer to such Committee or committees. Then sub-sec. (5) which is material for our purposes reads as follows:

(3.) The petition is heard today. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Vakharia appearing for the respondent No. 1 that the petition was liable to be summarily rejected on the ground of gross delay in the facts and circumstances of the case. Inviting my pointed attention to Annexure A at page 14 of the petition and particularly the dates in respect of third and fourth committees to which some of these respondents are made.. members. Mr. Vakharia urged that if the petitioners claimed to be vigilant and interested in the implementation of the legal provision they should have come to this court at the earliest possible moment. I do not think that four oil five months delay is of any significant consequence. As a matter of fact under the law quoted above it is the initial duty of the members elected to more than two Committees to come forth voluntarily and retire from the Committees on which they cannot serve as members. If they did not do so they arose the duty of the District Panchayat to have its attention focused of these provisions but nothing of the sort having been done despite the mandatory provisions of law from which serve is no escape the petitioners knocked the doors of this court. It was expected of the respondent no. 1 -District Panchayat and its august members the respondents nos. 2 to 9 to have acted in accordance with the provisions sec. 131(5) of the Act but when they have chosen not to do so the petitioners insistence on the maintenance of the rule of law in accordance with the provisions of the law cannot he brushed aside on a technical plea of there being some delay.