Judgment:
Suresh Chand Agrawal, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, Ishardas has has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the order (Annx-3) dated 27th February, 1986, be passed by the State of Rajasthan.
2. The petitioner is a Panch of Gram Panchayat, Deevali in Alwar, hereinafter referred to as 'the Gram Panchayat' Respondent No. 3, Shri Hargobind had been elected as Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat by its resolution dated 7th December, 1985, declared the seat of Shri Hargobind vacant under Section 17(2) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that he had absented himself from five conseeutive meetings on the Gram Panchayat without giving any information in writing. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Additional District Development Officer, Alwar, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules')and the Additional District Development Officer passed the order (Annx-2) dated 6th February, 1986, whereby he declared the seat of Shri Hargobind as vacant under Section 17(2) of the Act. The case of the petitioner is that, thereafter, he had been discharging the functions of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Thereafter Hargobind submitted a revision petition before the State Government under Section 27A (1) of the Act and in the said petition, the State Government has passed the order (Annx-3) dated 27th February, 1986, whereby the operation of the order dated 6th February, 1986, passed by the Additional District Development Officer has been stayed till further orders. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the State Government dated 27th February, 1986 petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. I have heard Shri Jagdeep Dhankar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State and Shri S.D. Sharma for Shri Hargobind, respondent No. 3.
4. The question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is, as to whether, the State Government has jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition under Section 27A(1) against an order passed by the Additional District Development Officer in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Rule 12(5) of the Rules. This very question has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Hanuman Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. in D.B. Special Civil Appeal No. 217 of 1983, decided on May 11, 1983. In that case also the question was as to whether the State Government was competent to revise an order passed by the Deputy ''Development Officer in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Rule 12(5) of the Rules and reliance was placed on behalf of the State on the powers conferred on it under Section 27A(1) as well as Section 69 of the Act. This Court after considering the provisions of the Act and the Rules held that the order passed by the Deputy District Development Officer under Rule 12(5) of the Rules could by no stretch of imagination fall within the ambit of the revisional powers conferred on the State Government under Section 27A(1) of the Act or under the general power on administrative control conferred on it under Section 69 of the Act. The present case is thus fully covered by the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Hanuman Singh's case (supra) and in view of the said decision the order (Annx-3) dated 27th February, 1986 cannot be upheld and must be set aside.
5. Shri Sharma, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, has, however, urged that the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Hanuman Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) has not correctly decided and it needs reconsideration. In my view the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court is binding on me and I find no reason to doubt the correctness of the said decision.
6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order (Annex-3) dated 27th February, 1986, passed by the State Government is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.