BHIMSEN TYAGI Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 26 -12 -1991 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ghaziabad, Respondent No. 1, rejecting the notice dated 22 -10 -1991 for removal of Up -Pradhan.

(2.) VEDI Ram was elected as Up -Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha/Gram Panchayat in the election held in the year 1988. Out of 17 members of Gram Panchayat, 13 members sent a notice (Annexure '3' to the petition) to the Prescribed Authority praying for his removal. Respondent No. 1 by his order dated 26 -12 -1991 (Annexure '7' to the petition) directed the said notice to be consigned to the records in view of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and Rule 33 -Kha(i) of the Rules framed there under.

(3.) IN view of Section 11 -C of the Act, the provisions of Section 14 are to be applied to the removal of Up -Pradhan as they apply to the removal of Pradhan with the substitution of references to Gaon Sabha and Pradhan by references to Gram Panchayat and Up -Pradhan respectively. As is clear from the aforesaid Annexure '3', 13 members out of 17 members of the Gram Panchayat allegedly served the notice on Respondent No. 1 of their intention to move a motion for removal of the Up -Pradhan. On the said notice Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order (Annexure '7') declining to convene such a meeting and directing the said notice to be consigned. He has not assigned any reason for rejecting the said notice except that the notice not being in consonance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and Rule 33 -Kha(1) framed there under is directed to be consigned. Such a non -reasoned order cannot be allowed to stand. It does not become clear from the order as to what considerations prevailed upon him in passing the impugned order. It cannot be scrutinised as to whether those considerations were reasonable or arbitrary and extraneous. Section 14 of the Act read with Section 11 -C makes a provision for removal of Up -Pradhan, while elaborate procedure for removal is laid down under Rule 33 -Kha(1) of the Rules. Without looking to those provisions Respondent No. 1 has arbitrarily held that the said notice is not in consonance of these provisions. In these circumstances, there is no option but to set aside the impugned order.