IN THE HIGH CORT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4699/2007 Smt. Sumer Devi Vs. State of Rajashan & Ors. 23.7.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUJSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Ganesh Meena, for the petitioner. Ms. Manju Dave, Additional Government Advocate. The matter comes up on the application filed by the respondent under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the interim order of stay dated 16.7.2007. Learned counsel for the parties submit that since the submission on the application as well as the writ petition are the same, the writ petition itself may be heard and decided finally. The prayer is allowed. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.5.2007 (Annexure-7) by which the petitioner who is the Ward Panch, the post held by the petitioner has been declared vacant on the ground that she has remained absent for more than three consecutive meetings of the Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was served with a notice Annexure-4 on 21.3.2007 and on the same date was required to submit the reply however, despite the paucity of time, a reply was submitted denying the above allegations. The respondents thereafter having considered the reply and the material available passed the order Annexure-7 on the basis of report submitted to the State Government by the Enquiry Officer. It was held that there was material on record to show that the petitioner had remained absent for more than three consecutive meetings of the Gram Panchayat, on account of which the petitioner acquired disability to continue in office. The petitioner further contended that the action was initiated on account of the fact that 17.3.07 a notice was given amongst others by the petitioner for a vote of no confidence against the Sarpanch and the decision was taken in haste by the respondent to give protection to the Sarpanch. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Officer has not proceeded as per Rules 22 and 23 of the Panchayat Raj Rules 1996. The respondents in their reply in para 7 have submitted that a notice was given on 21.3.2007 and the reply was received from the petitioner and after receipt of the reply and consideration of the material on record the impugned order Annexure-7 came to be passed by the Government on the basis of the report by the Enquiry Officer, and the petitioner has been unseated vide order dated 28.5.2007 on the finding that the petitioner remained absent for more than three consecutive meetings of the Panchayat and hence acquired the disqualification to continue as member. In the reply it has further been given out by the respondents that the petitioner was absent twice over for more than three consecutive meetings. In the first instance the petitioner was absent on 9 occasions of the Panchayat for the meetings held on 14.10.2005, 20.10.2005, 5.11.2005, 21.11.2005, 5.12.2005, 20.12.2005, 6.1.2006, 20.1.2006 and 6.2.2006. Subsequently also the petitioner remained absent for more than three Consecutive Meetings held on 5.5.2006, 20.5.2006, 5.6.2006, 20.6.2006, 5.6.2006, 20.7.2006 and 5.8.2006. It is the case of the respondent that on the above findings of based upon the material on record and after consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner, in terms of rule 24 of the Rajashan Panchayat Raj Rules 1996 the order dated 28.5.2007 came to be passed against the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions. From the pleadings which are not disputed by the petitioner as no rejoinder has been filed that on two occasions the petitioner remained absent for more than three consecutive meetings of the Gram Panchayat there was no denial of the averment made in para 7 of the reply nor was any copies of the entries of proceedings of the Gram Panchayat produced by the petitioner to refute the allegations made by the respondents in their reply. Thus the grounds on which the notice was given to the petitioner on 21.3.2007 stand substantiated. In that view of the matter that there is no denial of the above fact no useful purpose would be served by seeking further enqury. I therefore find no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.5.2007 and the same calls for no interference in the writ jurisdiction consequently the writ petition is dismissed and the interim order stands vacated and the application No.14000 submitted by the respondent stands allowed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS