SMT. RUKHSANA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counter affidavit filed on behalf of interveners in the Court today is taken on record.

(2.) The petitioner before this Court is a Gram Pradhan and elected way back in the year 2014. The petitioner has presently challenged the no confidence motion proceedings which have been initiated against her by the villagers of Gram Sabha in which the date fixed for considering the no confidence motion is 29.09.2016. Petitioner alleges violation of Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 (from hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The provision for initiating the no confidence motion against the Pradhan is given under Sec. 18 of the Act. There are two conditions in Sec. 18 of the Act, which the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit have been violated. The first contained in clause 1 of Sec. 18 of the Act, according to which, the requisition must bear the signature of at least th of the total members of the Gram Sabha to the Panchayat Raj Adhikari and the Panchayat Raj Adhikari after verification must thereafter call for no confidence meeting for which 15 days notice is required as provided under Sec. 18(4) of the Act.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the signature which has been made in the requisition contain names of such persons as well who are dead, and therefore, first condition is not met. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the total members of the Gram Sabha are 2779 but according to the learned counsel for the interveners the total members are 2523. The requisition bears signature of 1157 persons. Even it is assumed for the sake of argument that the total strength of Gram Sabha is 2779, 1157 would be much more than the th of the members. Moreover, how many are fake signatures, etc have already been seen by the concerned officer and at this stage this aspect cannot be looked into by this Court. The second objection of the petitioner is that 15 days clear notice is a mandatory requirement under Sec. 18(4) of the Act, which has not been followed inasmuch as the show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 14.09.2016 but it was served on the petitioner on 20.09.2016, and the date fixed for consideration of no confidence motion is 29.09.2016. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further argue that 15 days notice would mean 15 days clear notice or at least 15 days of clear notice which would necessary imply the two terminal dates i.e., 14.09.2016 and 29.09.2016 have to be excluded from this 15 days. If that is done, the notice would be of 14 days as between 14.09.2016 to 29.09.2016.