BABITA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The provisions as contained under Part 9 of the Constitution of India, particularly in reference to Article 243 which had undergone a Constitutional amendment made by the Constitution 73rd Amendment Act 1992, with effect from 24/4/1993. As a consequence thereto while dealing with the electoral process relating to the Panchayats the Constitution has created a bar from interference by the Court in electoral matters except for the exception which has been carved out under Article 243 (O) of the Constitution, which is extracted hereunder:-

(2.) The Uttarakhand Panchyat Raj Act of 2016 by virtue of Act No.10 of 2019 made effective with effect from 25/7/2019 had inserted Sec. 138 (d) which reads as under:-

(3.) In fact, the exercise of powers for taking an action against the elected representative of Panchayat by attracting the provisions contained under Sec. 138(1) (d) in fact, if at all any action is required to be contemplated to be taken against the elected representative i.e. Pradhan or Up Pradhan, as the case may be. The said power could have been exercised only by the authority as contained and included, under Sec. 138 that is the "State Government". The Panchayat Raj Act has independently defined the District Magistrate under Sub Sec. (20) of Sec. 2 of the Act, which is altogether a distinct executive authority, then to the State as defined under Sub Sec. (38) of Sec. 2 of the Act. The reference of the aforesaid two definitions of the Collector or the District Magistrate or the State has been referred to herein in order to appreciate the fact as to who would be the competent authority to exercise the powers for removal of a Pradhan by exercising its powers under Sec. 138(1)(d) of the Panchayat Raj Act.