P.P. Naolekar , J. - (1.) The present case is a classic example of casual manner in which the Government briefs are handled and thereby the courts are misled. Petition challenging the no confidence motion contains the facts and grounds that (i) meeting of no confidence did not precede with fifteen clear days notice (ii) the competent authority did not preside over the meeting nor record any reasons for not doing so and, (iii) although the Sub Divisional Officer, Kotputali was nominated to preside over the meeting of no confidence was presided over Tehsildar, Kotputali. Petitioner Madan Lai (herein respondent No. 1) filed only two documents alongwith the petition in support of the allegation i.e. notice dated 13.10.1998 (Annexure No. 1) and the proceeding of the no confidence motion dated 23.10.1998 (Annexure No. 2), Obviously to support his contention to challenge calling of meeting of no confidence without fifteen clear days intervening between the day on which the notice was issued and day on which meeting was held. Respondents not file any return. Order sheet dated 2.12.1998 (sic.) that the counsel for the respondents submit that no reply is required and case be heard finally. In the absence of reply, allegations that the competent authority did not record and reason for not presiding over the meeting and the allegation that instead of nominated Sub Divisional Officer Kotputali, Tehsildar Kotputali presided over the meeting, has gone uncontroverted. It may be mentioned here that none of the members of the gram panchayat Paota who brought the no confidence motion against the respondent No. 1, were made parties to the writ petition.
(2.) The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and set-aside the no confidence motion passed against the respondent No. 1 on the grounds that the competent authority could not have delegated his powers to preside over the meeting without recording cogent reasons which is mandatory provision under Section 37(4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and those reasons should also be known to the parties concerned. The court records that the Chief Executive Officer had only passed an order saying that the S.D.O. shall preside over the meeting and no reasons have been given in the order nor any reason has been brought on record by the respondents. The court was of the view that since mandatory requirement was not complied with the entire proceedings in the meeting stands vitiated. Secondly, meeting was presided over by the Tehsildar Kotputali who was not nominated by the competent authority and, therefore, proceedings in no confidence cannot be given effect to. The learned Single Judge did not deal with the question of fifteen clear days notice as he allowed the writ petition of the respondent (in writ petition) on two grounds.
(3.) Eighteen panchas filed an application to permit them to file an appeal challenging the order of the leanred Single judge, as they were not parties to the writ petition. Alongwith the appeal the appellants have filed three documents. Annexure No. 1 is a letter dated 16.10.1998 sent by the S.D.O. Kotputali informing the competent authority that he shall not be available to preside over the no confidence motion meeting dated 23.10.1998 as 'teeka' ceremony of his brother is arranged on that date. Annexure No. 2 is an order dated 16.10.1998 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur to the effect that the previous order nominating S.D.O. Kotputali is changed on account of his inability to attend the no confidence meeting and instead thereof Tehsildar Kotputali is nominated to preside over the meeting. Annexure No. 3 is the note-sheets of the proceedings recorded by the Chief Executive Officer, the competent authority right from the beginning of the no confidence motion proceedings under Section 37(2) onwards in which it was specifically recorded on 31.8.1998 that on account of on going 'samasya samaadhaan' camp and his supervisory duties it will not be possible for him to preside over the meeting of no confidence personally and thus in exercise of the powers under Section 37 he nominates S.D.O. Kotputali who will preside over the meeting. This Court has permitted by order dated 2.5.1999 the panchas to file appeal and the documents filed alongwith the appeal were also permitted to be taken on record. We have sent for the original record and perused the same during the course of arguments. The appeal was registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 479/99. The State has also filed an appeal which is registered as D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 194/99.;