Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Gurnam Singh vs Union Territory Of J And K on 13 July, 2020
Author: Dhiraj Singh Thakur
Bench: Dhiraj Singh Thakur
S. No.217
After Notice
Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE FROM SRINAGAR)
WP(C) 1042/2020
Gurnam Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate.
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Seema Shekhar, Sr.AAG.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
ORDER
13.07.2020
1. The petitioner in this petition is a Sarpanch of Panchayat Halqa Ranjitpur. It appears that vide communication dated 05.03.2020 which was signed by as many as six Panches out of seven, the Secretary of Panchayat communicated the intention of the members of Panchayat to move a motion for removal of petitioner as Sarpanch. This notice was conveyed to the Naib Sarpanch on 17.03.2020 which is evidenced by the seal and signatures of Naib Sarpanch namely Subash Chander.
2. According to the counsel for the respondents the said communication was also brought to the notice of the petitioner who appended his signatures thereupon which however, is denied by the counsel for the petitioner.
3. Be that as it may, before conveying the notice to the Naib Sarpanch on 17.03.2020, the communication dated 06.03.2020 was addressed to the Chairman, Block Development Council, Marh informing him about the intention to move a motion of no Page |2 confidence against the petitioner. The Chairman, BDC, Marh, instructed the Secretary of the Panchayat to convene a meeting on 24.03.2020. Accordingly, the Secretary of Panchayat issued the communication dated 18.03.2020 requesting the members of Panchayat to attend the meeting on 24.03.2020.
4. Ms. Shekhar, Sr.AAG submitted that the meeting which was scheduled to be convened on 24.03.2020 could not be convened due to the imposition of nationwide lockdown in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic and accordingly the meeting was re-scheduled to be convened on 19.06.2020 as is reflected in the communication dated 09.06.2020. However, on 09.06.2020 no meeting could be convened in view of the directions passed in this writ petition by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court dated 17.06.2020, whereby the meeting to be convened on 09.06.2020 was ordered to be deferred.
5. Counsel for the petitioner stated that no action ought to have been taken on 05.03.2020 as it did not fall within the purview of Section 7 of the Panchayati Raj Act. It was urged that there was no gross misconduct, negligence of duty or any disqualifications or omission to attend the meeting alleged against the petitioner in the said communication.
6. On a perusal of the communication dated 05.03.2020, it can be seen that the allegations made therein did reflect misconduct especially the allegation with regard to taking forcible signatures of all the Panches and getting the work executed by misleading them. Misbehavior with Panches as also with the general public and creation of communal atmosphere is also alleged therein against the petitioner. The allegation of selling the government cement has also been made in the said communication.
7. In my opinion the argument that the same do not fall within the purview of Section 7 of the Act is untenable and is accordingly rejected.
8. The second issue highlighted by the counsel for the petitioner in this petition was that no meeting could have been convened Page |3 beyond the period of 20 days as is otherwise envisaged in Rule 81 of Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.
9. On a plain reading of Rule 81, it can be seen that after the receipt of communication from the members of Panchayat for intention to move a motion for no confidence, a duty is cast upon the Secretary of Panchayat Halqa to take steps for convening a special meeting not earlier than 10 days and not later than 20 days from the date of receipt of the motion. The period of 20 days has been fixed to seek early redressal of the grievance of the Panches against either Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch who seek their ouster as such. What is important is that the Secretary has to 'take steps' to convene the meeting. Taking steps to convene the meeting is not the same thing as the actual meeting which might be conducted beyond the period of 20 days provided all other requisite steps have been taken within the prescribed period of 20 days.
10.In the present case, the Secretary of the Halqa Panchayat had convened the meeting within the prescribed 20 days period, however, for the reason beyond his control, the meeting which was otherwise scheduled on 24.03.2020 could not be so held because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Any action of the respondents in re- convening the meeting with a view to take the motion of 'no confidence' to its logical conclusion, therefore, cannot be said to be bad or illegal. On the other hand it only promotes the democratic functioning at the Panchayat level. The argument thus, raised is untenable, and accordingly fails.
11.The third issue raised by the counsel for the petitioner was that the communication dated 05.03.2020 was never brought to the notice of the petitioner. Requirement of Rule 81 is that such communication needs to be brought to the notice of Sarpanch or Naib Sarpanch. There is sufficient evidence on record that the said communication was brought to the notice of at-least the Naib Sarpanch as can be seen from the seal and signatures appended on the communication dated 05.03.2020.
Page |4
12.Be that as it may, although the official respondents have vehemently urged that even the petitioner had the knowledge of the said communication and had appended the signatures, yet in view of the denial of the same by counsel for the petitioner, I do not wish to proceed any further on that issue especially when Naib Sarpanch had duly been served.
13.In view of the above, the present petition is found to be without any merit as such, is dismissed. However, it shall be open to the official respondents to convene a meeting on 20.07.2020 for the purpose of taking the motion of 'no confidence' moved against the petitioner to its logical conclusion.
14.Disposed of along-with all connected applications.
( DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR ) JUDGE SRINAGAR 13.07.2020 Muzammil. Q NARESH KUMAR 2020.07.15 17:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document