V.K.SINGHAL,J. - (1.) BY this writ petition prayer is made that entire proceedings initiated by Mr. Attah Ullah Khan, Asstt. Accounts Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara, respondent No. 2 on the basis of Annex. 1 (complaint) be declared illegal and respondents be restrained from declaring the result of the said no confidence motion. The second contention which has been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that notice for no confidence motion is not in the prescribed form.
(2.) EARLIER , D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 2338/97 was preferred and it was found that Panchas were not illegally detained. Another question was raised that Mr. Attah Ullah Khan was not competent to issue notice for convening the meeting on 24th June, 1997. The Court directed that all the questions relating to the meeting of 24th June, 1997 be considered separately. The present writ petition thereafter was filed alleging that Shri Dayanand Saini was posted as Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara and he has handed over the charge to Shri Attah Ullah Khan on 2nd June, 1996. Shri Attah Ullah Khan is neither R.A.S. Officer nor I.A.S. Officer is not eligible to be appointed as Chief Executive Officer in terms of Section 82(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. In this matter a complaint was filed against the petitioner to the Chief Executive Officer. Thereafter, letter dt. 5.6.1997 was issued by respondent No. 2. In this notice, Tehsildar, Banswara was nominated to preside the meeting, but thereafter by order of the Collector, Tehsildar, Bagidora was appointed to preside over the said meeting vide order dt. 24.6.1997. The petitioner submitted the objections to the Tehsildar, Banswara that Accounts Officer Shri Attah Ullah Khan is not authorised and cannot delegate his power.
(3.) THE submission of learned Counsel for the respondents is that respondent No. 2 since was holding the charge, therefore, was competent to issue notice and in terms of Section 37(3) of the Act of 1994 notice has to be issued within 30 days from the date on which the notice of no confidence motion moved. It was obligatory to continue the proceedings which have been initiated. It is also stated that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner and that irregularity in the conduct of proceedings would not vitiate the proceedings.;