TATIA, J. - (1.) THIS Special Appeal is against the judgment dated 3. 5. 2007 by which the petitioner's writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that the Panchayat Samiti, Bhadesar of District Chittorgarh had total 15 members who were eligible to cast their votes on the No Confidence Motion against the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti Smt. Pyari Bai. THE Motion was put for consideration in the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti held on 22. 2. 2007. Before 22. 2. 2007, three orders were passed by the State Government declaring the petitioner and the members Mangi Lal Dangi and Smt. Kamla Devi disqualified and their seats were declared vacant under Section 39 (2) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short the Act of 1994) on incurring their disqualification under Section 39 (1) (b) of the Act of 1994 on account of their remaining absent in the meetings of the Panchayat Samiti on three continuous occasions without information. Copies of these orders are Annexture-7, Annexture-8 and Annexture-9. However, the orders passed against the Mangi Lal Dangi and Smt. Kamla Devi were withdrawn by the Government on next day only vide orders dated 22. 2. 2007 (Annexture-10 and Annexture-11 ). THE information of cancellation of declaring the seats of Mangi Lal Dangi and Smt. Kamla Devi as vacant, were sent by fax to the Sub- Divisional Officer who was conducting the proceedings for consideration of No Confidence Motion against Pradhan Smt. Pyari Devi. THE orders of dis-qualification of Mangi Lal Dangi and Smt. Kamla Devi were withdrawn by the Government on their representations that before declaring them disqualified to hold the post of Member and declaring their seats vacant, no opportunity of hearing was given to them. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was also not given any notice before declaring his seat vacant after holding him disqualified to hold the post on the same ground of his absence in three continuous meetings of the Panchayat Samiti without information but the order dated 21. 2. 2007 which was passed against him was not withdrawn malafidely. The petitioner's contention is unique in the sense that the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the two others Mangi Lal Dangi and Smt. Kamla Devi referred above were in fact disqualified and, therefore, their seats were rightly declared vacant by the State Government vide order dated 21. 2. 2007. If this contention of the petitioner is accepted then the number of the elected Members of the Panchayat Samiti reduces to 12 only and nine votes are the 1/3rd of the total number of elected Members and are sufficient for carrying out No Confidence against Smt. Pyari Bai. Substantially, the petitioner's contention can find way only when it is held that the orders Annex. 10 and Annex. 11 dated 22. 2. 2007 are illegal or null and void so as to make the orders dated 21. 2. 2007 (Annex. 7 and Annx. 8) to be operative. Meaning thereby unless said Members Mangi Lal Dangi and Smt. Kamla Devi are not declared as disqualified to hold the post of Member of the Panchayat Samiti, the petitioner cannot get the relief. The petitioner has, neither in original writ petition nor in amended writ petition (filed without permission of the Single Bench) sought relief of quashing above two orders Annex. 10 and 11. Further, said Mangi Lal and Smt. Kamla Devi were not impleaded as party in the writ petition and order adverse to them has been sought in arguments only without any prayer in the writ petition. The petitioner's prayer in the original writ petition is as under:-      " 23. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and- 23/i. By appropriate writ, order or direction it be declared that 23/i/a. The No Confidence Motion against Respondent Smt. Pyari Bai has been carried out and she is no longer entitled to continue as such. 23/i/b. The Respondent Shri Kalu Ram Gurjar be ordered to be removed from the office of the Minister or if such direction is not found feasible, any other appropriate order punishing him be passed. 23/i/c. As for Respondent Shri Khem Raj Choudhary, in the even of it being found that he has not opined according to law and has thus surrendered his discretion he too may be appropriately dealt with. 23/ii. Any other appropriate writ, order or directions as my be considered appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be made. 23/iii Cost of the writ petition be allowed to the petitioner. " The relief has been claimed against the respondent Kalu Ram Gurjar and Khem Raj Choudhary on the basis of allegation that decision for proceedings in particular manner was taken at the level of Panchayati Raj Department and this has been done to oblige respondent-Smt. Pyari Bai and to ensure that she continues to remain Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti. The petitioner's further contention is that "it cannot be that all that has transpired at Jaipur is doing of the Secretary, Gramin Vikas & Panchayati Raj Department and, therefore, what flows from this is that this must have been done by respondent Shri Kalu Ram Gurjar, Minister, Gramin Vikas & Panchayati Raj Department or under pressure of Shri Kalu Raj Gurjar. " For Khem Raj Choudhary,secretary , Gramin Vikas & Panchayati Raj Department, the petitioner's allegation is that "fault can be found upon him if he has not opined that what has been required to be done by Shri Kalu Raj Gurjar should not be done as that would be illegal. It would be different matter if Shri Khem Raj Choudhary is found to have informed Shri Kalu Ram Gurjar that all actions taken at the level of the Ministry were not legally tenable. If he has not done so he surely failed to discharge the duties of his office and liable to appropriate order. " The writ petition was listed in Court on 15. 3. 2007 and on that day it was just passed over. On 17. 3. 2007 an application for amendment in the writ petition was filed by the petitioner. On 4. 4. 2007, without obtaining any order on application for amendment of writ petition, writ petition was argued, upon which notices were issued to the respondents. Replies were filed by the respondents no. 1 and 5 and by respondent no. 4 separately.
(3.) IN reply, respondent no. 4 Smt. Pyari Bai, Chair Person of the Panchayat Samiti specifically took objection that she received copies of the amended writ petition along with the notices but when matter was listed before the court on 13. 4. 2007, the counsel for answering respondents, on inspection, found that there is no order of this Court allowing the amendment in the writ petition sought by the petitioner and in absence of any order allowing the amendment of the writ petition, it was not open for the petitioner for sending the notice of the amended writ petition to the answering respondents. According to learned counsel for respondent no. 4, filing of the notice of amended writ petition clearly goes to show that the petitioner has tried to overreach the process of this Court and, therefore, the petitioner is dis-entitled for any relief from this Court in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia. It appears from the record also that the petitioner submitted application seeking relief to amend the writ petition on 17. 3. 2007 and that application was never allowed nor amended writ petition was taken on record by this Court. Though the application for amendment was filed on 17. 3. 2007 but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, no order was obtained by the petitioner from the court on this application and the petitioner proceeded with the original writ petition and on original writ petition of the petitioner, notices were issued. The objection was taken in the reply filed by respondent no. 4 about sending copy of the amended writ petition to respondent no. 4 along with the notices. In reply to the respondent No. 4's preliminary objection, the petitioner submitted that the writ petition first came up for consideration before the Court and the court felt that the petitioner should seek a relief regarding restoration of his membership and it was pursuant to that observation that the amended writ petition was filed and came before the Court where after the Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct issuance of the notice. According to the petitioner, it was from this that it was deduced that the amendment has been allowed. The prayer in the amended writ petition is as under:-      " 23. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and- 23/i. By appropriate writ, order or direction it be declared that 23/i/a. The No Confidence Motion against Respondent Smt. Pyari Bai has been carried out and she is no longer entitled to continue as such. 23/i/aa. The order dated 21. 2. 2007 (Annex. 9) be declared to be illegal and be quashed. 23/i/b. The Respondent Shri Kalu Ram Gurjar be ordered to be removed from the office of the Minister or if such direction is not found feasible, any other appropriate order punishing him be passed. 23/i/c. As for Respondent Shri Khem Raj Choudhary, in the event of it being found that he has not opined according to law and has thus surrendered his discretion he too may be appropriately dealt with. 23/ii. Any other appropriate writ, order or directions as may be considered appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be made. 23/iii. Cost of the writ petition be allowed to the petitioner. " ;