HARIPRAKASH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was elected as the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bhamrola, District Udham Singh Nagar on 29th September, 2008. On 21st October, 2010, an application was filed under section 4 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Rule 33-B of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') for initiating a no confidence motion against the petitioner. On this application, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, by an order dated 23rd October, 2010, fixed 29th October, 2010 for verification of the signatures of the members of the Gram Sabha. On 25th October, 2010, it was found that one of the affidavits, which accompanied the notice, was defective and accordingly, the District Panchayat Raj Officer returned the notice filed under section 14 of the Act.

(2.) A fresh application was filed on 2nd November, 2010. This application was accompanied by the affidavits of five members of the Gram Sabha certifying the signatures of 1248 members out of 1830 members of the Cram Sabha. On this application, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, by an order dated 4th November, 2010, fixed 11th November, 2010 for verification of the signatures of the members. This date was, subsequently, postponed till 12th November, 2010. Due publication and announcement by loudspeaker was made with regard to the verification of the signatures of the members.

(3.) A number of grounds have been raised in the writ petition, but, the point, which has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is capsulated hereunder. It was contended that under section 14 of the Act read with Rule 33-B of the Rules, it was mandatory for the District Panchayat Raj Officer to be satisfied about the genuineness of the signatures appended to the notice of no confidence motion and since the District Panchayat Raj Officer had not recorded his satisfaction nor any proper verification was done by him, the entire proceedings stood vitiated and consequently, the order dated 29.11.2010, by which the motion was carried out, should be set aside. The learned Counsel submitted that the order dated 12.11.2010 fixing 29.11.2010 for consideration of the no confidence motion did not indicate the subjective satisfaction by the authority concerned with regard to the genuineness of the signatures of the members of the Gram Sabha inasmuch on the date fixed for the verification of the signatures, only 40 signatures out of 1248 signatures were verified which was wholly insufficient. It was further contended that under Rule 33-B (5)(iii)(b), the prescribed authority was required to satisfy himself about the identity of the voters before handing over the ballot paper and as per the record, only 43 signatures were verified from the voters list, which clearly indicates that genuine voters had not cast their votes and that outsiders had cast the votes. In support of his submission. the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Bhagwan Devi v. State of U.P. and others.1 1. 1999 (90) RD 480.