S ANJI REDDY Vs. DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER NARASARAOPET
LAWS(APH)-1992-7-6
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on July 01,1992

S.ANJI REDDY Appellant
VERSUS
DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, NARASARAOPET Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is a matter in which the petitioner, sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, was declared to have been ceased to be the sarpanch on account of non-convening of gram panchayat committee meeting within the stipulated period of 90 days. The said order of cessation was suspended by this Court on 1-9-1988 and the said interim orders are in operation. In the impugned order itself the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Narasaraopet clearly finds that on the basis of the records of the gram panchayat viz., minutes book, agenda book and the members attendance register, that the petitioner did convene a meeting of gram panchayat on 2-8-1988 which is well within 90 days from 5-5-1988, as 90 days period would expire only on 3-8-1988. Under the provisions of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, a duty is cast upon the sarpanch of the gram panchayat to convene a committee meeting of the gram panchayat once in every 90 days. In the instant case the concerned officer referred to above has clearly recorded a finding in the impugned order that the petitioner had convened the said meeting on 2-8-1988, but the members did not attend the said meeting. If the members did not attend the said meeting there was no obligation on the petitioner too, to sit idle. There are no transactions or the Gram Panchayat to be discussed or done. Under the provisions of the Act the statutory obligation of the sarpanch is to convene the meetings in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. But for non-attendance of the members, the sarpanch cannot be blamed and he cannot be removed from the office on the ground of the members not attending the meeting. It is not a case of the petitioner not holding the meeting. As admittedly the members were not present and the question of holding the meeting did not arise. The petitioner had fully discharged his obligation the moment he had convened the meeting, but he cannot be found fault if the said meeting was not held for the absence of the members of the committee of the gram panchayat.
(2.)UNDER these circumstances, I set aside the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Advocate's fee Rs.250/-.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.