SHIVARAJ V.PATIL, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) In brief, the facts leading to filing of the writ petition are the following : The petitioners was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Milakpur in the year 1995. According to him, he was functioning as Sarpanch in the interest and welfare of the Panchayat as well as the public at large of the area. The members who were opposed to the petitioner, gave a proposal to the respondent No. 2 for moving vote, of 'No Confidence' against him. The respondent No. 2 , namely, the Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, Zila Parishad, Alwar, issued a notice on 23-12-1997 informing that a meeting had been convened on 15-1-1998 for consideration of 'No Confidence' motion against the petitioner. As many as 8 allegations were made against the petitioner, on the basis of which a vote of 'No Confidence' was sought to be moved. It is not necessary to give the details of the allegations in order to decide the controversy raised.
(3.) The petitioner had informed the Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti, Ramgarh, that the three Panchas, namely, Smt. Premawati W/o Sukha (ii) Gopi, Panch, Ward No. 3 and (iii) Swaroop Singh, Panch, Ward No. 9 had incurred disqualification on account of birth of their third issue. He had also informed that Shri Prabhu Dayal, Up-Sarpanch, was not attending the meetings of the Gram Panchayat for the last one year. Shri Ish Kumar, Pancha from Ward No. 11 had resigned and the letter of resignation was sent for acceptance to the Panchayat Samiti. Thus, the five Panchas having incurred disqualification were not entitled to either to propose to move vote of 'No Confidence' against the petitioner or to participate in the meeting in which vote of 'No Confidence' was to be moved. The respondent No. 2 could not convene a meeting on the proposal so made by the Panchas who had incurred disqualification or who had ceased to be members of Gram Panchayat. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the very notice dated, 23-12-1997 (Annexure 1), convening the meeting on 15-1-1998 for the purpose of consideration of motion of 'No Confidence' against him and sought for quashing the same. A further direction is sought to the respondents that without determining the question as to disqualification of five Panchas, named above, no meeting for consideration of 'No Confidence' should be convened.;