JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction restraining the Panchayat Samiti, Jayal, from implementing its resolution dated 18th December, 1961 by which it decided to dissolve all the seven Standing Committees formed under sec. 20 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 12th March, 1961.
(2.) THE petition was contested on behalf of all the respondents. Section 20 (10) and (11) of the Act run as follows: - "20. (10) THE term of office of every standing committee constituted under this section shall, subject to the provision contained in subsection (11), be co-extensive with the terra of office of the Panchayat Samiti. (11) As nearly as may be, one third of the members of a standing committee shall retire every year in accordance with rules made in this behalf: Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to the standing committees of the first Panchayat Samiti constituted under this Act before the 31st day of January, 1961. " Under section 14 of the Act, the term of office of a Panchayat Samiti is three years. The present Panchayat Samiti was constituted in January, 1961. Its term will consequently expire in January, 1964. In view of the provision contained in section 20 (10) of the Act, the term of the standing committee formed on 12th March, 1961, can only expire when the term of the Panchayat Samiti itself expires. These committees cannot be dissolved by the Panchayat Samiti before the expiry of their terms unless all the members thereof voluntarily tender their resignations. The resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on 18th December, 1961, purporting to dissolve the standing committees is, therefore, void. On behalf of the respondents, it was argued that on 18th September, 1961, the Panchayat Samiti passed a resolution unanimously to the effect that the number of the standing committees which had been formed was much too large and should be reduced and that as the petitioners themselves were parties to the resolution, they are bound by it. A perusal of that resolution (Ex. A. 1) goes to show that it was resolved that all the members of the standing committees, which had been formed, should voluntarily tender their resignations. The mere passing of the resolution is not tantamount to a resignation of the members of the standing committees who were present at that meeting. Nor are the petitioners estopped from challenging the validity of the subsequent resolution. Another argument which was advanced on behalf of the respondents was that the standing committees, which were formed, were not legally formed as their number had not been fixed by the Panchayat Samiti. There is no provision in the Act requiring the Samiti to fix the number of standing committees before forming them. Seven standing committees were formed on 12th March, 1961 - three compulsory ones and four optional ones. By actually forming seven standing committees, the Panchayat Samiti simultaneously fixed the number of the standing committees to be formed at seven. Yet another argument, which was advanced, was that a bye-law was framed on 18th December, 1961, fixing the number of standing committees at four, and that in view of the bye-law the Panchayat Samiti was entitled to dissolve the standing committees. As has been pointed out above, the standing committees which had once been formed could not be dissolved before the expiry of the term of the Panchayat Samiti and the bye-law which was framed can only apply after the expiry of the term of the present Panchayat Samiti, or after the members of all the standing committees, which have been formed, voluntarily resign. I accordingly allow the writ petition and direct the Panchayat Samiti, Jayal, not to dissolve any of the Standing Committees formed on 12th March, 1961, unless the members voluntarily tender their resignations. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of this writ petition. .;