Allowed

Sohanlal Jain v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Feb 2022CW/149/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a notice convening a No Confidence Motion alleging violation of Section 37(13) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The High Court held that the motion initiated before one year of the election is void under Section 37(12) and quashed the notice.

What did the court decide?

The notice of 'No Confidence Motion' dated 06.12.2021 was quashed; the writ petition and stay application were disposed of.

Sohanlal Jain Vs State of Rajasthan — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 149/2022

¶4

Sohanlal Jain S/o Motilal Jain, Aged About 61 Years, Village And Post Dhanin, Tehsil Charbhuja, Panchayat Samiti Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand Presently Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dhanin, Panchayat Samiti Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶8

District Collector, Rajsamand

¶9

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Rajsamand 4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand

¶10

Gram Panchayat Dhanin, Panchayat Samiti Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand Through Its Village Development Officer

¶11

Manohar Singh S/o Ram Singh Solanki, Village Dhanin, District Rajsamand Presently Up- Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Dhanin, Panchayat Samiti Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand

¶12

Himmat Singh S/o Laxman Singh, Village Dhanin, District Rajsamand Presently Ward Panch, Ward No.10, Village Baniya Tukda, Gram Panchayat Dhanin, Panchayat Samiti Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand

¶13

Smt. Manju Soni W/o Sunil Soni, Village Dhanin, District Rajsamand Presently Member, Gram Panchayat Ward No.8, Village Mojawato Ka Guda, Gram Panchayat Dhanin, Panchayat Samiti Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand

¶14

Ratan Singh S/o Mohan Singh Patwa, Village Dhanin, District Rajsamand Presently Member, Gram Panchayat Ward No.2, Village Dhanin, Gram Panchayat Dhanin, Panchayat Samiti Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand

¶15

Himmat Singh S/o Fateh Singh, Village Dhanin, District Rajsamand Presently Member, Ward No.1, Village Amli Ka Guda, Gram Panchayat Dhanin, Panchayat Samiti Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand

¶16

(2 of 3) [CW-149/2022]

¶17

Vikas S/o Babulal Khatik, Village Dhanin, District Rajsamand Presently Member, Gram Panchayat Ward No.4, Village Dhanin, Gram Panchayat Dhanin, Panchayat Samiti Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand

¶18

Mangu Kunwar W/o Manohar Singh, Village Dhanin, District Rajsamand Presently Member, Gram Panchayat Ward No.7, Village Amliyar, Gram Panchayat Dhanin, Panchayat Samiti Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand

¶19

Sudaram S/o Pitha Bheel, Village Dhanin, District Rajsamand Presently Member, Gram Panchayat Ward No.6, Village Mansingh Ji Ka Guda, Gram Panchayat Dhanin, Panchayat Samiti Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand

¶20

Smt. Saski W/o Pratap Gameti, Village Dhanin, District Rajsamand Presently Member, Gram Panchayat Ward No.9, Village Mohanram Ji Ka Gudda, Gram Panchayat Dhanin, Panchayat Samiti Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Tak Mr. Devendra Mahalana JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order

¶23

17/02/2022

¶24

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged notice of ‘No Confidence Motion’ dated 06.12.2021, alleging it to be contrary to the provisions of Section 37 (13) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

¶25

Mr. Mukesh Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention toward the relevant facts and submitted that the petitioner was elected on 17.01.2020, which is evident from certificate to this effect which was issued on 17.01.2020.

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-149/2022]

¶28

He submitted that that since a period of two years has not passed since the petitioner was elected, No Confidence Motion could not have been brought on 06.12.2021. He argued that the impugned notice dated 06.12.2021 convening the meeting to discuss ‘No Confidence Motion’ is illegal.

¶29

Mr. Tak, learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.

¶30

Section 37(12) reads thus:-

¶31

“(12) If the motion is not carried as aforesaid

¶32

or if the meeting could not be held for want of a quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expression want of confidence in the same Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson shall be made until after the expiration of one year from the date of such meeting.”

¶33

A simple reading of the above provisions shows that the motion that has been brought prior to 2 years of election is void. 7. The impugned No Confidence Motion dated 06.12.2021 (Annex.2) is, therefore, quashed.

¶34

The writ petition so also stay application stand disposed of.

¶35

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶36

104-pooja/-

Sohanlal Jain v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohanlal Jain v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajveer Singh Vs Smt. Naseeb Kaur

Smt. Rajo Vs Bhupendra

Kamakshi School of Nursing Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivaji Post Basic Nursing College Vs State of Rajasthan

Mewar University Vs State of Rajasthan

Mewar University Vs State of Rajasthan