VIMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner was elected as the? Pradhan and was removed by a majority of two-third members of the Gram Sabha. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the no confidence motion, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the original notice of no confidence motion was not proper as the signatures of five members was not supported by an affidavit and that the signatures of the members of the Gram Sabha were not verified by the District Panchayat Raj Officer. The learned counsel further contended that 15 days previous notice was also not given as per Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 33-B of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and that the application was not moved by those five persons in person. In spite of these irregularities, which were fatal, the motion of no confidence was carried out on the date fixed and the petitioner was voted out the power by a majority of two-third members of the Gram Sabha. The learned counsel also contended that in the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion, the agenda was not discussed by the members of the Gram Sabha and that the provisions of Rule 37 of the Rules for holding a meeting of the Gram Sabha was also not carried out in accordance with the said provision and, therefore, the motion of no confidence was liable to be quashed since the procedure was not followed.