SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a lady who was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Shankhwali, Panchayat Samiti Ahore on 2. 3. 95 for a period of 5 years. Her term was to expire on 1. 3. 2000. THEre were 12 elected members of the Panchayat including the petitioner. No confidence motion was moved by the Panchas of the Gram Panchayat against the petitioner in a meeting held on 17. 7. 99 alleging that instead of the petitioner, her husband was acting as Sarpanch which resulted into corruption and seriously affected the progress of the village. On 19. 7. 99, no confidence motion was submitted to the Chief Executive Officer by those Panchas. On receiving the same, the Chief Executive Officer-respondent No. 2 gave notice to all the members of the Panchayat on 27. 7. 99 (Annex. 3) for considering the no confidence motion against the petitioner on 16. 8. 99. Simultaneously, he passed an order dated 27. 7. 99 (Annex. 4) delegating his power to Assistant Engineer to preside over the meeting which was to be held on 16. 8. 99. It was objected by the petitioner on the ground that the Chief Executive Officer cannot delegate his powers to Assistant Engineer under Section 37 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short `the Act' ). However, the Assistant Engineer presided over the meeting on 16. 8. 99 and no confidence motion was duly passed against the petitioner (Annex. 5 ). This has been challenged in this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) TWO contentions have been raised by the learned counsel Mr. Singh for the petitioner (1) That while delegating his powers to Assistant Engineer, the Chief Executive Officer has not followed the provisions contained in Section 37 (4) of the Act. Hence, the passing of no confidence motion on 16. 8. 99 (Annex. 5) was bad. Reply affidavit is filed to this petition and along with the same, documents at Annex. R/1 and R/2 have been annexed which are the ordersheets. It appears from the Annex. R/1 that a note was prepared on 24. 7. 99 or receiving that no confidence motion notice and the submission was made below that to the Chief Executive Officer on 26. 7. 99. On that day i. e. 26. 7. 99, the Chief Executive Officer passed an order on a separate file on the noting made that as he was busy in the forthcoming elections and for other administrative works, he will not be able to preside over that meeting, therefore, he delegated his powers to preside over the meeting to the Assistant Engineer. Thus, it is clear that the reasons were already recorded by the Chief Executive Officer before he issued a notice dated 27. 7. 99 (Annex. 3) and delegated his powers on 27. 7. 99 (Annex. 4 ). However, learned counsel Mr. Singh for the petitioner submitted that the Chief Executive Officer ought to have mentioned this in the impugned order dated 27. 7. 99 (Annex. 4) and non-disclosure of the reasons in the said order makes the entire proceedings invalid. This submission of Mr. Singh cannot be accepted because while passing an order of delegation of powers, he has to pass an order to that extent only for which he has to record the reasons separately. The docu-ments annexed along with the reply affidavit shows that it was done in regular course of business and it was not the allegation of the petitioner that they were prepared later on to frustrate his contention. Hence this submission of Mr. Singh is rejected. Learned counsel Mr. Singh then submitted that the Assistant Engineer cannot be said to be competent person as provided under Section 82 of the Act. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Manjula vs. State of Rajasthan & others (1), which was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1164/97 filed by the State of Rajasthan. I fail to appreciate that how the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Manjula's case (supra) which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court will help the petitioner in this case. In case of Smt. Manjula (supra), one Dayanand Saini was posted as the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Banswara who handed over the charge to one Shri Attah Ullah Khan on 2. 6. 96. Attah Ullah Khan was neither R. A. S. Officer nor an I. A. S. Officer and not eligible to be appointed as the Chief Executive Officer in terms of Section 82 (1) of the Act. In that case, a complaint was filed against the petitioner Smt. Manjula to the Chief Executive Officer Attah Ullah Khan who delegated his powers to Tehsildar, Banswara and directed him to preside over the meeting. Smt. Manjula submitted the objection to the Tehsildar, Banswara that Attah Ullah Khan was not authorised, therefore, he cannot delegate his power. That is not the case here. The facts which are not in dispute are that Chief Executive Officer was very much competent, who only delegated his powers under Section 37 (4) of the Act to the Assistant Engineer. Hence the Single Bench judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Manjula (supra) confirmed in appeal by the Division Bench has no application. Once it has been held that the Chief Executive Officer was empowered to delegate his powers after duly recording the reasons, then no fault can be found with the impugned order Annex. 5 passed by the Chief Executive Officer.
(3.) IN view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed. .;