Delhi High Court
Gulab Singh vs Lt. Governor And Ors. on 21 November, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1987 (12) DRJ 90, 1987 RLR 95
Author: R Aggarwal
Bench: R Aggarwal, C Chaudhry
JUDGMENT
R.N. Aggarwal, J.
(1) Rule D. B.
(2) The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the Additional District Magistrate-cum-director by which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was conveyed the order of the Lt. Governor, Delhi appointing Shri Surjan Singh, a member of Panchayatas Acting Pradhan of Gaon Panchayat Kakrola, Najafgarh Block, Delhi. The sub-Divisional Magistrate was further ordered to deliver charge of the office of the Pradhan of Gaon Panchayat Kakrola to Shri Surjan Singh.
(3) The challenge to the above order is by Shri Gulab Singh who is the Up Pradhan of the Gaon Panchayat, Kakrola. Shri Chander Singh was the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. Shri Chander Singh died on 15/10/1986. According to the respondents a resolution was passed by the Gaon Panchayat expressing no confidence in the Up-Pradhan and the Gaon Panchayat had further passed a resolution to the effect that Shri Surjan Singh be appointed as acting Pradhan of the Gaon Panchayat, the impugned order does not show that the Lt. Governor had passed the order appointing Shri Surjan Singh,. Member Panchayat as the Acting Pradhan on the basis of the resolution passed by the Gaon Panchayat. The Notification simply states that the Lt. Governor is pleased to appoint Shri Surjan Singh, Member Panchayat as Acting Pradhan; of Gaon Panchayat Kakrola.
(4) Rule 11 of Appendix Vii of the Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954,. provides for the election of Gaon Panchayat. Rule 12 provides that the terms. of office of a Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or a Gaon Panchayat shall be three years from the date of their respective elections. Rule 13 provides for the removal of the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan and filling of vacancies so caused. The said. rule reads as follows : "13.Removal of Pradhan or Up-Pradhan and filling of vacancies. so caused- The Gaon Sabha may at a meeting specially convened for this purpose remove the Pradhan or the Up-Pradhan by a majority of two third of the members present and voting. In such an event and otherwise when any vacancy occurs the Gaon Sabha or the Gaon Panchayat shall forthwith elect another Pradhan or upPradhan, respectively, in the manner they are originally elected".
(5) Rule 53 of the Delhi Panchayat Raj Rules, 1959 provides that when a vacancy occurs by the death, resignation or removal of any Pradhan or Member of Gaon Panchayat, or of a Panch of a Circle Panchayat and the vacancy thus caused has to be filled by election, such election shall be conducted in manner prescribed in this Chapter.
(6) Admittedly, after the death of Shri Chander Singh, there has been no election as prescribed by the rules to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Chander Singh, Pradhan. Shri Ramesh Chandra has not pointed out to us any provision under which the Lt. Governor was competent to appoint an Acting Pradhan. Shri Ramesh Chandra referred to rule 16 of the Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954 and contended that Shri Surjan Singh had been appointed to preside over the meetings pursuant to the resolution passed by the Gaon Panchayat on 17th October 1986. Rule 16 is in the following terms : "16.Conduct of business in the absence of Pradhan or Up Pradhan In the absence of the Pradhan of the Gaon Panchayat the Up- Pradhan, or in the absence of both a member of the Panchayat authorised by the Pradhan in writing or in the absence of such authorisation a member authorised by the Gaon Panchayat under a resolution to this effect, shall be entitled to preside over the meetings or to sign any document or to do all other things necessary for the conduct of suits and proceedings."
(7) We find that this is only a provision which authorises the Panchayat to nominate person to preside over the meetings in the absence of the Pradhan or the Up-Pradhan. Admittedly, Shri Gulab Singh, the petitioner is the Up-Pradhan. Rule 16 docs not give any authority to appoint any Acting Pradhan. The impugned notification is clearly illegal and without jurisdiction.
(8) We allow the Petition and quash the impugned notification dated "6/11/1986. No costs.
