SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THIS case has a chequered history. The petitioner is a lady Sarpanch. THIS is the III writ petition filed by her before this Court. First writ petition No. 4441/97 was filed by her praying that the respondent No. 2 be restrained from holding the meeting of passing no confidence motion against her on 15. 12. 1997, in pursuance of the notice dt. 21. 11. 97. It was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition.
(2.) SECOND writ petition No. 4619/97 was filed by the petitioner challenging the notice dated 18. 12. 1997 calling the meeting of the Panchayat to be held on 3. 1. 1998, and obtained stay upto 12. 12. 1997, which was subsequently not extended. The second writ petition was also dismissed as withdrawn on 27. 1. 1998 with liberty to file fresh writ petition. A copy of the said order is annexed by the learned counsel for the respondents alongwith the reply affidavit. By way of this III writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice sent for holding the motion as also the meeting held on 27. 1. 1998 for passing no confidence motion against her. On 23. 2. 1998, this Court (P. P. Naolekar, J.) ordered to issue show cause notice to the respondents. Notice was also ordered to be issued on stay petition, but no stay was granted. Reply affidavit has been filed by the respondents and in para No. 3 of the reply at running page 45 it has been stated that, "the petitioner has made false averments in the writ petition that she did not know about the meeting dated 27. 1. 98 for consideration of `no Confidence Motion' against her. ' On this, learned counsel Shri Bishnoi appearing for the respondents vehemently submitted that this petition should be dismissed for making false statement, without going into the merits of the case, However, learned counsel Shri Saluja for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed rejoinder and in para No. 2 of the same it has been explained that how the petitioner had no knowledge about the notice dated 20. 1. 1998 and the meeting, which was to take place on 27. 1. 1998. From the averments made in the petition and particularly in para No. 6 of the reply affidavit it is clear that the petitioner had clear knowledge about the meeting and the notice Annex. 1 and the petitioner delibrately made false statement in the petition and obtained the order of notice, therefore, on this ground alone the petition was required to be dismissed. It may be stated that this matter was adjourned from time to time by different Hon'ble Judges and on last four occasions it was adjourned by this Court to find out the latest position in the matter. On 3. 8. 99, Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted at that time that the point in question is squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court in favour of the petitioner in case of Madan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1 ). On that day, it was also submitted that my learned brother Hon'ble Bhagwati Prasad, J. directed Shri Bishnoi to produce the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer authorising the Deputy District Education Officer to preside over the meeting to be held on 27. 1. 1998. According to the petitioner, Deputy District Education Officer presided over the meeting on 27. 1. 1998 without any such order in writing from the Chief Executive Officer. However, learned counsel Shri Bishnoi was directed to produce the said order, which he has produced today and the original order was also shown to Mr. Mridul. Having seeing that order, Mr. Mridul conceded that the main point does not survive anymore. However, Mr. Mridul submitted that there are other points also which he wants to argue, but he submitted that the matter may be kept at 2. 00 p. m. When the matter was once again taken up at 2. 00 p. m. learned counsel Shri Saluja in place of Mr. Mridul stated that he will address this Court in place of Mr. Mridul and Mr. Saluja was, therefore, permitted to address the Court.
(3.) MR. Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that three other Panchas were also not served with the notice dated 20. 1. 1998, therefore, calling of the meeting on 27. 1. 1998 to pass no confidence motion against the petitioner is illegal. However, it was pointed out by MR. Bishnoi from the reply affidavit that they were duly served. This was not controverted by the petitioner in her rejoinder. However, learned counsel Shri Saluja vehemently submitted that merely asserting in the reply affidavit by the respondents that the three other Panchas were served was not enough and they should have produced the documentary evidence in support of the same that those three Panchas were duly served with the notice. In support of his submission, MR. Saluja placed reliance upon the judgment in case of Gajanand Narayan Patil vs. Dattatraya Waman Patil (2) (relevant para 11 and 12 at page 641 and 642 respectively ). I fail to understand that how this judgment of the Supreme Court in Gajanand Narayan Patil's case (supra) has any application on the facts of this case. A statement made on oath by the responsible officer has to be accepted rather than a vague statement made by the petitioner on oath. I would like to reproduce the averments made by the petitioner in her writ petition at para 6, which is as under:- " That on later enquiries the petitioner learns that the notice dated 20. 1. 1998 was not served upon Sarva Shri Sahi Ram-Panch from Ward No. 9, Bharat Singh from Ward No. 11 and Hari Singh from Ward No. 8 and it is only 8 out of 12 Panchas who were present in the meeting and of course since the petitioner did not come to know of the meeting, she was also not present. " From the above, it is clear that who were the officials, from whom the enquiry was made, nothing has been stated and no details about the same are given. Not only that the petitioner has not jointed them as party respondents or produced their affidavit in support of her case to show that they were never served with a notice. In these type of cases, the Court has to presume under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that notice must have been served upon the Panchas. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the averment made on oath stating that those three Panchas were duly served. In my opinion, it will be stretching too far in asking the respondents to substantiate their say made on oath by producing such document about the service of notice on the persons who are not party to the proceedings. I can understand that the petitioner herself resorted that she was never served with the notice and if the respondents had stated in the reply affidavit that she was duly served with the notice then for the satisfaction of the Court perhaps the court might have asked the respondents to show the proof about the service but that all depends upon the facts of each case. Hence, this submission of Mr. Saluja fails and is rejected. Before parting, I must state that the petitioner is filing successive petition after petition and obtaining order of notice by making absolutely false statement in the petition on oath, which is required to be viewed seriously. If she had not stated on oath in para No. 6 that she did not come to know about the meeting then perhaps this Court might have even issued notice. This is nothing but sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court. ;