- (1.) THIS is a writ petition by one Nandram against an order of the Tehsildar declaring that a no-confidence motion against him had been duly passed by a majority of not less than three-fourths of the total number of Panchas. The petitioner made a representation to the Collector which was rejected on the recommendation of the Deputy District Development Officer. The facts have been correctly stated in his note, annexure 2.
(2.) THE Panchayat consists of one Sarpanch and 8 elected Panchas. As a result of the general election no one was elected from ward No. 5. One Gangaram was appointed as Panch to this ward for a period of six months under sec. 8 of the Panchayat Act. Two ladies and one person belonging to the scheduled castes named Sheoram were co-opted to the Panchayat. As the Deputy District Development Officer has pointed out in annexure 2, Sheoram became a duly elected Panch to the Panchayat under sec. 9 (4) for the full term of it. On the expiry of the six months term of Gangaram a person belonging to the scheduled castes named Rekha was elected to ward No. 5. Sheoram thereafter stopped attending the meetings of the Panchayat under the impression that on account of the election of Rekha he no longer remained a Panch. But the Panchayat never declared that Sheoram's seat had become vacant on account of his absence from five consecutive meetings of the Panchayat as provided under sec. 17 (2) read with rule 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat ( General ) Rules, 1961. Before the enforcement of the above rule it was held by this Court in Ladhuram vs. The Chief Panchayat Officer (1) that the disqualification under sec. 17 (2) was automatic. But after the coming into force of rule 12 the disqualification is no longer automatic. It is only when the Panchayat makes a declaration under rule 12 (4) that the disqualification comes into force. Sub-rule (7) gives power to the Sub-Divisional Officer to suspend the effect of the declaration until final decision of the dispute referred to in sub-rule (5 ). As the Panchayat made no declaration that the seat of Sheoram had become vacant on account of his incurring a disqualification, Sheoram continued to be a Panch of this Panchayat with the result that on the date on which voting on the no-confidence motion took place the Panchayat had 11 Panchas. A vote of no-confidence could only be carried by not less than three-fourths the total number of Panchas under sec. 19 (2), that is, it could only be carried if at least 9 Panchas voted in favour of it. As only 8 Panchas voted for the no-confidence motion, the motion was not carried out. I accordingly allow the writ petition, set aside the declaration of the Tehsildar and the subsequent order of the Collector and declare that Nandram petitioner continues to hold the office of the Sarpanch of Mandawar Panchayat. In the (circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of this writ petition. . ;