JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Smt. Kalawati and Smt. Kisturi directed against a decision of Munsif Bayana acting as a Tribunal under R. 78 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules 1960 setting aside their co-option as members of the Brahmvad Panchayat.
(2.) THE election of the Panchas and Sarpanch of the Panchayat took place on 10. 12. 60. On 11. 12. 60 the Sarpanch issued notices convening a special meeting for the co-option of two women on 18. 12. 60. According to the Sarpanch no co-option took place at this meeting as adjourned it on the ground that there was an apprehension of a breach of peace taking place. No date for holding the adjourned meeting was however fixed at that time. THE Sarpanch issued notices on 28. 12. 60 convening a special meeting for co-option on 30. 12. 60. On that date, Smt. Kalawati and Smt. Kisturi were declared as co-opted. THEir co-option was challenged by respondents 3 to 8 on a number of grounds. THE Tribunal held that the Sarpanch had no power to convene a special meeting for co-option beyond 15 days from the date of his election as Sarpanch in view of the provision of sec. 9 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act 1953. Against that decision the present writ petition has been filed. THE contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the Sarpanch is authorised to convene a special meeting for co-option even beyond 15 days of the date of election provided that the officer appointed by the Collector in this behalf does not convene one. Sec. 9 of the Panchayat Act runs as follows: - "co-option of certain Panchas.- (l) As soon as may be after the election of Panchas and Sarpanch for a Panchayat, there shall be co-opted in the prescribed manner by the Panchas so elected from amongst persons qualified under this Act to be elected as Panchas - (i) two women, if no woman has been elected to the Panchayat, (ii) one woman, if only one woman has been so elected, (iii) one person belonging to the scheduled castes, if no such person has been elected to the Panchayat, and (iv)one person belonging to the scheduled tribes, if no such person has been so elected and the population of such tribes in the Panchayat Circle exceeds five percent of the total population thereof. 2. Within fifteen days after his election the Sarpanch shall convene, under due notice in the prescribed manner, a special meeting of the newly elected Panchas to co-opt persons referred to in sub-sec. (1): Provided that if the Sarpanch does not convene such special meeting within the aforesaid time, any Officer appointed by the Collector in this behalf shall likewise convene such special meeting. (3) If, within one month of the first meeting of the Panchayat convened for such co-option,the Panchayat fails to co-opt the requisite number of persons, the Collector shall nominate such person or persons and every person so nominated shall be deemed to have been duly co-opted. (4) The persons so co-opted or deemed to be co-opted shall be additional Panchas of the Panchayat and shall in all respects and for all purposes be deemed to be duly elected Panchas. The rules contained in the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules 1960 provide that a person elected as Sarpanch shall immediately issue a notice in Form V for the special meeting referred to in sec. 9 (2) and shall endorse a copy of it to the Collector. If the Collector does not receive a copy of such a notice within 3 days after the date on which the Sarpanch was declared to have been elected or the date of the return of the result of the election, whichever is later, the Collector is required to appoint an officer to convene such special meeting of the, newly elected Panchas and Sarpanch for co-option. A perusal of sec. 9 of the Panchayat Act as well as the relevant rules relating to co-option of Panchas contained in Chapter II of the Election Rules (Rules 50 to 55) goes to show that the intention of the Legislature is that a Panchayat should be completely constituted as soon as possible after the election of the Panchas and Sarpanch. The provision contained in sec. 9 and the relevant rules merely prescribe or regulate the way in which this op-option is to be done. A reading of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 9 goes to show that it is only when the Panchayat fails to co-opt the requisite number of persons within one month of the first special meeting conveyed for cooption that the Collector has power to fill the vacancies by nomination. The intention of the Legislature appears to be that the Sarpanch should ordinarily convene the meeting for co-option and if he fails to convene it within 15 days of his election, then alone an officer appointed by the Collector in this behalf can convene the special meeting. In the present case the first special meeting for cooption was convened on 18. 12. 60. That was within 15 days of the election. It was open to the Sarpanch to adjourn the meting for sufficient reason. Further it is not a matter of substance whether the meeting is convened by the Sarpanch or by the officer appointed by the Collector. It cannot be inferred from the wordings of sec. 9 that the power of Sarpanch to convene the special meeting for co-option comes to an end on the expiry of 15 days from the date of his election. The meeting convened by the Sarpanch on 30. 12. 60 for the cooption of two women cannot be regarded as invalid merely on the ground that his power to convene the meeting came to end. The decision of the Tribunal to the contrary is therefore erroneous and I set it aside. I however find that the validity of the co-option of Smt. Kalawati and Smt. Kisturi was challenged in the election petition before the Tribunal on some other grounds also which are contained in para 3 of the election petition and about which the following issue was framed: - "whether the co-option of non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 is invalid, ineffective and illegal for the reasons mentioned in para 3 of the petition. The petitioners who filed the election petition have produced evidence in support of those other grounds. The Tribunal has however not dealt with them at all. 1 accordingly remand the case to the Tribunal for deciding the election petition after rehearing the parties on those other grounds. The writ petition is decided as indicated above. I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of the present writ petition. .;