Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Bansidhar v. The State Of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court

Aug 12, 1966

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Bansidhar challenging the validity of a motion of no-confidence declared to have been passed against him. The petition was contested by nine Panchas who voted for the no-confidence motion.

Under section 4 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 the Panchayat's strength is fixed at one Sarpanch and 12 Panchas. On the date the motion was taken there were only 11 Panchas because one Panch, Ramsi, had been removed under section 17(2). Nine Panchas voted for the no-confidence motion. Section 19 requires a motion of no-confidence to be carried by a majority of not less than three-fourths of the "total number of members of the Panchayat including the Sarpanch, but excluding the associate Panchas." The dispute is whether “total number of members” means the fixed strength under section 4 (which would require 10 Panchas to vote) or the number of members holding office at the time (in which case 9 Panchas sufficed).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the phrase "total number of members" in section 19(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 refers to the total strength fixed by section 4 or to the total number of members holding office at the time.
Whether the earlier decision in Gokalchand v. The Chief Panchayat Officer Rajasthan (holding that "total number" meant fixed strength under section 4) remains applicable in view of statutory definitions adopted by amendment and by reference to other Acts.
Whether the seat of Ramsi (declared vacant by the Panchayat on 10-6-65 but later set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 9-8-65) was to be treated as holding office on the date the no-confidence motion was passed (24-6-65) for the purpose of computing the "total number of members."

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's (Bansidhar) Arguments

Relied on the decision in Gokalchand v. The Chief Panchayat Officer Rajasthan that the phrase "total number of Panchas" in section 19(2) signifies the total strength fixed under section 4; according to that decision the motion was not carried.
Contended that the definition of "total number" in the Rajasthan Municipalities Act applies only with reference to a "board" (municipal board) and thus cannot be applied to interpret the Panchayat Act; therefore the Municipalities Act definition is inapplicable.
Amendment application: pointed to an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 9-8-65 holding that Ramsi's seat could not be treated as vacant and sought to argue Ramsi was holding office on 24-6-65 when the motion was passed.

Respondents' (Nine Panchas) Arguments

Argued that the Rajasthan Panchayat Act has been amended and that the earlier decision (Gokalchand) is not applicable to the Act as it stands.
Pointed to section 2(16) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act which imports meanings assigned in the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act for words not defined in the Panchayat Act; that Act in turn adopts definitions from the Rajasthan Municipalities Act for words not defined there.
Relied on section 3(36) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, which defines "'whole number' or 'total number', when used with reference to the members of a board, means the total number of members holding office at the time," and argued this definition should apply (with necessary adaptation) to the Panchayat Act so that "total number" means members holding office at the time (making 9 votes sufficient).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Gokalchand v. The Chief Panchayat Officer Rajasthan	Held that the phrase "total number of Panchas" in section 19(2) signifies the total strength of the Panchayat as fixed under section 4 of the Act.	The court noted this earlier holding and that, according to it, the motion would not have been carried. However, after interpreting the present statutory scheme (section 2(16) and the definitions adopted from the Panchayat Samitis and Municipalities Acts) the court found that the earlier decision was not applicable to the Act as it presently stands and therefore reached the opposite conclusion on the facts before it.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the chain of statutory definitions. Section 2(16) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act provides that words and expressions used but not defined in it and defined in the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act shall have the meanings assigned to them in the latter Act. The Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, in turn, adopts definitions from the Rajasthan Municipalities Act for terms not defined therein.

The Rajasthan Municipalities Act (section 3(36)) defines "'whole number' or 'total number', when used with reference to the members of a board, means the total number of members holding office at the time." Although that definition in the Municipalities Act is expressed with reference to a "board" (a municipal board as defined in section 3(2)), the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act adopts the Municipalities Act definition with necessary adaptation. The court reasoned that where a definition is adopted by the intermediary Act, it applies to the Panchayat Act with necessary adaptation: thus "total number" when used with reference to the members of a Panchayat means the total number of members holding office at the time.

Applying that interpretive approach, the court concluded that the phrase "total number of members" in section 19(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act refers to members holding office at the time the motion was passed. On the factual question of Ramsi's status, the court accepted that the Panchayat had declared Ramsi's seat vacant on 10-6-65 and that a later order of the Sub-Divisional Officer on 9-8-65 set that order aside. The court held that between those dates Ramsi could not be treated as holding office for the purpose of computing the total number of members unless the Sub-Divisional Officer had directed under rule 12(7) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1960 that the Panch concerned should continue to act as if the seat had not become vacant pending final decision. In the absence of such an order, Ramsi was not to be counted as holding office on 24-6-65.

On this combined statutory and factual analysis, the court found that nine Panchas voting for the no-confidence motion amounted to the requisite three-fourths of the members holding office at the time, and therefore the motion was carried.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The writ petition is DISMISSED.

Implications:

The court held that "total number of members" in section 19(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act must be read (by adopting definitions through section 2(16) and the intermediary Act) as referring to the total number of members holding office at the time; applying that reading the no-confidence motion was carried.
The court treated Ramsi's seat as vacant on 24-6-65 (absent a specific interlocutory order under rule 12(7) keeping him in office), so Ramsi was not counted when computing the membership for the motion.
Direct effect: the petition challenging the no-confidence motion was dismissed and the parties were left to bear their own costs. The opinion does not discuss broader precedential consequences beyond the statutory interpretation applied in this case.

Show all summary ...

Jagat Narayan, J.:— This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by one Bansidhar challenging the validity of a motion of no confidence which was declared to have been passed against him. The petition has been contested by 9 Panchas who voted for the no-confidence motion.

2. Under sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 the strength of the Panchayat has been determined at one Sarpanch and 12 Panchas. On the date of the no-confidence motion there were only 11 Panchas in the Panchayat, as one Panch named Ramsi had been removed under sec. 17(2). Nine Panchas voted for the motion of no-confidence. Sec. 19 lays down that a motion of no-confidence can only be said to be carried if it is carried by a majority of not less than ¾th of the total number of members of the Panchayat including the Sarpanch, but excluding the associate Panchas. If the phrase “total number of members” signifies the total strength of the Panchayat as fixed under sec. 4 then before a motion of no confidence can be said to have been carried 10 Panchas should vote for it. If on the other hand the phrase means the total number of members holding office for the time being then the motion of no-confidence can be carried by 9 Panchas voting for it.

3. In Gokalchand v. The Chief Panchayat Officer Rajasthan (1) it was held that the phrase ‘total number of Panchas’ in sec. 19(2) of the Panchayat Act signifies the total strength of the Panchayat as fixed under sec. 4 of the Act. According to that decision the motion of no-confidence was not carried against the petitioner.

4. On behalf of the contesting respondents it is argued that the Rajasthan Panchayat Act has since been amended and the above decision is not applicable under the Act as it stands at present. Under sec. 2(16) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act words and expressions used but not defined in it and defined in the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act shall have the meanings assigned to them in the latter. The phrase “total number of Panchas” has not been defined in the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. Nor has it been defined in the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishade. Act But sec. 2(16) of that Act lays down that words and expressions used but not defined in it shall have the meanings assigned to them in the law for the time being in force relating to Panchayats, Municipalities and District Boards. Sec. 3(36) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 runs as follows:

“‘whole number’ or ‘total number’, when used with reference to the members of a board, means the total number members holding office at of the time.”

5. It is argued that the above definition is applicable to the Rajasthan Panchayat Act. The total number of Panchas under sec. 19(2) would therefore mean the total number of Panchas holding office at the time.

6. In reply it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the phrase “total number of members” has not been defined in the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act. It has been defined in the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. But that definition is meant only for being used with reference to the members of a board. “Board” has been defined under sec. 3(2) as a municipal board. It is therefore argued that the definition given in the Rajasthan Municipalities Act defining the phrase “total number” cannot be applied to the interpretation of the Panchayat Act.

7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Sec. 2(16) of the Panchayat Act lays down that words and expressions used but not defined in it and defined in the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Page: 157Zila Parishads Act shall have the meanings assigned to them in the latter. If the latter Act adopts the definition given in a third Act that definition would apply to the interpretation of the Panchayat Act in my opinion. The expression “total number” has been defined in the Raiasthan Municipalities Act in the following words:—

“‘Total number’ when used with reference to the members of a board, means the total number of members holding office at the time.”

8. “Board” is defined under sec. 3(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act as a municipal board established or deemed to be established under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. This definition has been adopted by the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act. That means that the definition is adopted with necessary adaptation. The expression “member” has been defined under the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act. But the phrase “total number of members” has not been defined in that Act. It has been used in that Act e.g in sec. 39, which deals with motion of no-confidence in Pradhan or Up-Pradhan. The definition of this phrase given in the Rajasthan Municipalities Act would apply to the interpretation of sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act with necessary adaptation. “Total number” when used with reference to the members of a Panchayat Samiti would mean the total number of members of the Samiti holding office at the time. The same definition will apply to the interpretation of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act with necessary adaptation “Total number” when used with reference to the members of a Panchayat Samiti would mean the total number of members of the Panchayat holding office at the time.

9. In this view of the matter the motion of non-confidence was carried against the petitioner by the requisite majority. An amendment application was moved on behalf of the petitioner during the course of hearing intimating that the Sub-Divisional Officer had held by his order dated 9-8-65 that the seat of Ramsi Panch could not be treated as vacant and seeking to take a ground that Ramsi was holding office on 24-6-65 when the no-confidence motion was passed. In my opinion the seat of Ramsi was declared vacant on 10-6-65 by the Panchayat and that order was only set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 9-8-65. Between the two dates it cannot be said that Ramsi was holding office for the purpose of counting the total number of members of the Panchayat for purpose of sec. 19. It is open to the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass an order under rule 12(7) of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules, 1960 directing that the punch concerned whose seat is alleged to have become vacant shall continue to act as if the seat has not become vacant pending final decision. Unless such an order is passed the Panch cannot be treated as holding office.

10. In the result, I dismiss the writ petition. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.