Modi, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for writ under Article 226 of the Constitution by Ramdhan and others against an order of the Gram Panchayat, dated the 8th June, 1956 by which it directed the petitioners to remove a large heap of rubbish (Ukardi), presumably in their Mohalla, and imposed fine of Rs. 15/- on each of them for their failure to have done so within the time allowed. A further fine of rupee one per day was imposed on the petitioners until they obeyed the order.
(2.) THE petitioners' case is that a notice was served on them for the first time by the Gram Panchayat on the 9th of May, 1956 in which it was stated that the petitioners had not appeared in compliance with an earlier notice, dated the 11th of April, 1956 to show cause why a direction be not given to them to remove the Ukardi in question and, therefore, they were now required under clause (xi) of sec. 26 to remove the 'ukardi' within a period of fifteen days from the date of the notice, in default whereof further action would be taken against them. It appears that as the petitioners did not carry! out the order which was passed against them, a further order dated the 8th of June, 1956 imposing a fine as stated above was passed against them. THE petitioners' grievance is that the notice, dated the 11th of April, 1956 referred to in the order of the village Panchayat dated 9th May, 1956 had never been served on them and, therefore, they had no occasion to show cause why they could not be called upon to remote the 'ukardi'. This application is opposed by the Panchayat on a number of grounds, but we consider it unnecessary to state them in detail as, in our opinion, the present application must stand concluded on a narrow ground. As already stated above, the notice dated 11th of April 1956 was admittedly not served on the petitioners, whereafter the next step which the Gram Panchayat took was to ask the petitioners forthwith to remove the 'ukardi' within a certain time from the date of the notice. On behalf of the Panchayat, our attention is invited to clauses (2), (7) and (20) of sec. 24 of Rajasthan Panchayat Act. 1953 and further to sec. 26 thereof, according to which a Panchayat possesses power to do all acts necessary for, and incidental to the execution of its obligatory and discretionary duties as set out in secs. 24 and 25 of the Act. All that is correct so far as it goes, and we do not for a moment question the authority of the Gram Panchayat to order the removal of any nuisance in the village or to fasten the responsibility for it upon certain persons, provided such a responsibility can be fastened upon them according to law. We feel, however, that the Panchayat acted with improper haste in this matter. It did well when it issued notices on 11th April, 1956 calling upon the petitioners to show cause why they should not be ordered to remove the rubbish. The trouble arose thereafter because that notice was not served on the petitioners, and the Panchayat immediately proceeded to pass a final order calling upon the petitioners to comply with their order, failing which it was also said that further coercive measures would be taken against them and eventually fines were imposed on them What the Panchayat should have done when the notices dated the 11th of April 1956 were not served on the petitioners was that further notices should have been issued and a contact established between the petitioners and the Panchayat, so that they should have had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the order which was intended to be passed. We also cannot help sying that an order passed in such circumstances behind the back of the petitioners without giving any reasonable opportunity to them to show cause why they should not have been called upon to remove the 'ukardi' was clearly against the very elementary principles of natural justice. For aught we know, it would have been possible for the petitioners to show that the 'ukardi', which they were called upon to remove, had been in existence for a very large number of years and that their responsibility in that connection was next to nothing and, therefore, the Panchayat itself should arrange to remove the 'ukardi' out of the general village fund. Learned counsel for the Panchayat at this stage submits that even though the order, dated the 9th of May, 1956 was passed without any notice to show cause having been served on the petitioners, the latter had ample opportunity within the fifteen days mentioned in that order to show cause why the Panchayat should not have passed that order. We regret we cannot read that order in the manner suggested by learned counsel for the simple reason that the order dated the 9th of May, 1956 definitely called upon the petitioners to comply with the order of the Panchayat. It were another matter if the petitioners might have still approached the Panchayat and shown cause why such an order should not have been passed upon them but we cannot hold them blameworthy if they did not do so. In this view of the matter, we hold that the orders dated the 9th of May, 1956 and the 8th of June, 1956 passed by the Gram Panchayat in this case cannot be sustained and we, therefore, allow this application and set them aside. This decision will not, however, prevent the Panchayat from taking necessary steps for the removal of the 'ukardi' assuming that it is still in existence, in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. .;