JAGDISH PANDEY Vs. ADDL COLLECTOR CITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.K. Rai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri R.K. Chaubey, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4. The Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are collateral of the Petitioner, who have not put any contest. Sri M.N. Singh, learned Counsel has ably assisted the Court on behalf of Respondent No. 3. Learned Standing counsel appears for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14th March, 1997, passed by the Additional Collector, Gorakhpur, in a revision filed by the Gaon Sabha, Respondent No. 3 holding, that the memo of revision as presented was competent, and that the revision could be entertained even it was signed by a private person, namely, Respondent No. 4. The Revising Authority relied on the decision in the case of Gaon Sabha v. Ram Karan Singh,1981 RevDec 1 to support the said legal proposition inferred by him.

(3.) Sri S.K. Rai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the inference so drawn by the learned Additional Collector is erroneous in law without considering the provisions of Paragrah-131 of the Gaon Sabha Manual as contained in Chapter-6 thereof, and that a private person had No. authority under law to sign the memo of revision and get it presented through the District Government Counsel. He contends that it has been time and again held by this Court that the procedure prescribed in law has to be followed and that it should have been done in that manner alone for which reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment in the case of Babu Ram Verma v. Sub Divisional Officer and Ors.,1996 AWC 1035, followed by another Division Bench judgement in the case of Gram Panchayat, Pusawali Block-Junawai of etc. v. State of U.P. and Ors.,2007 2 AllLJ 175.