ROOP NARAIN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was Pradhan of a Gaon Sabba. A motion of no confidence was moved against him. At the meeting 399 members were present. As many as 202 votes were cast in favour of the motion and 92 votes were cast against the motion. Law requires that not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting should vote in favour of the motion, vide section 14 (1) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. THE contention of the petitioner is that 104 votes which were cast but were found invalid should have been counted for the purpose of counting the aforesaid proportion of two-thirds. As this was not done, the decision of the Presiding Officer declaring the motion to be carried is said to be vitiated.

(2.) IN support of this contention reliance has been placed on a decision of a learned Single Judge reported in Dhan Sahai Singh Verma v. Zila Panchayat Adhikari, 1975 AWC 582. The said decision does not cite any authority in support of the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) IN Raul and Shakdher's Practice and Procedure of Parliament, Third Edition, Volume II, the following decision of the Rules Committee of the Lok Sabha has been cited in the context of the requirement in Article 368 of the Constitution in regard to the special majority for an amendment of the Constitution :