HARI PRAKASH 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 14 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. 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 Gram 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.

(2.) On the date fixed, i.e., on 12th November, 2010, 40 members of the Gram Sabha appeared and verified their signatures. 4 persons came forward and denied their signatures. It transpires that the petitioner filed an objection indicating that the notice contains 79 forged signatures. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, after considering the objection, held that even if 79 signatures are removed from the list, nonetheless, the notice of no confidence motion has been moved by more one-half of the total members of the Gram Sabha. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, accordingly, by its order dated 12th November, 2010, fixed 29th November, 2010 for consideration of the no confidence motion. On the said date, i.e., on 29th November, 2010, the motion was carried out after due discussion and out of 720 members who were present, 683 valid voters were certified, out of which 541 members voted in favour of no confidence motion and 108 members voted against the motion. Since the motion was carried out by more than two-third of the members present and voting and the quorum being complete, the District Panchayat Raj Officer issued an order allowing the no confidence motion. The petitioner, being aggrieved by his removal from the post of Pradhan, has filed the present writ petition questioning the no confidence motion dated 29th November, 2010 as well as the order dated 7th December, 2010 and 8th December, 2010, by which the petitioner was directed to hand over the charge.

(3.) Heard Sri C.D. Bahuguna. the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.C. Bisht the learned Brief Holder for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Kishore Kumar, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 & 6.