The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently pronounced that it cannot intervene with the democratic process stated in the Panchayati Raj Rules and stop the democratic process to decide the fate of any elected authority.
Case of the Plaintiff
The plaintiff by the virtue of his office (Chairman of BDC) had presided over the meeting which lead to the removal of the Sarpanch in terms of Rule 81 of the Panchayati Raj Rules. The plaintiff alleged that the Sarpanch then conspired for removing the plaintiff from the post of Chairperson as revenge for her removal.
For a purpose, a special meeting of fifteen Sarpanches was conducted on October 15, 2020 and a no confidence motion was passed., signed by 2/3 rd majority of Sarpanches was sent to Panchayat Officer, who gave it to Secretary Block Development Counsel to proceed in matter.
The Secretary, thereafter, issued a notice dated January 5, 2021 for holding a meeting at 12 PM at Block Head Quarters RS Pura on January 30, 2021. This notice was challenged before the trial court by the appellant by way of a civil suit seeking declaration that the said notice was void ab – initio and also sought an injuction against the scheduled meeting.
The application for grant of injunction was turned down by trial court by an order dated February 6, 2021. The refusal to grant interim relief was questioned before the Additional District Judge.
Contentions of the Appellant
That the limitation time for taking the steps and holding the meeting for removal of the Chairman as prescribed in Rule 81 has not be followed in required manner. That the mandate of Section 30 of the Panchayat Raj is not taken into considered in its right perspective by the trial court.
Observation of the Court
The Court stated that the procedural irregularity should be material one to render the process void. With respect to notice being served the Court observed that:
“Now simply on this account that notice, instead of being served directly to Secretary, is received by him through District Panchayat Officer, does not amount to such a material procedural irregularity that it renders the whole exercise non est”, the Court said.
It was further observed that only notice of removal has been sent and no removal has actually taken place, whereas the requirement of Rule 81 is that the notice sent by the Sarpanches should carry the reasons of removal followed by a no confidence motion.
“Fact remains that simply mentioning of reasons of removal does not mean removal in itself on said grounds unless they are put in debate and discussion by all the elected Sarpanches of the Panchayat in the meeting and only thereafter the motion which is earlier moved by any member on the three grounds is ratified by 2/3 rd strength of the total number of Sarpanches of halqa Panchayat of the Block, will lead to removal of the Chairman”, the Court said.
Thus it was observed that:
“It is exclusively their perogative to discuss the issue and formulate their opinion and not for this court to interfere and stop the democratic process to decide the fate of any elected authority.”
Thus the appeal was dismissed and it was put on record that the pronouncement made in the present case will have no impact on the trial of the suit that stands pending disposal in the trial court.
Case Details
Before: Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Case Title: Tarsame Kumar v. Secy Block DevelopmentCouncil
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tahir Khurshid Rain
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
