PARAS NATH PANDEY Vs. ZILA PANCHAYAT RAJ ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner-Paras Nath Pandey has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 26-8-1992 (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition).

(2.) The impugned order dated 26-8-1992 was passed by the District Panchayat Raj officer, Ballia on a written notice dated 14-8-1992 of the intention to move a motion for removal of the Petitioner who happens to be the Pradhan of the concerned Gaon Sabha. The said written notice dated 14-8-1992 was presented before the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ballia personally by five members of the Gaon Sabha, viz. jSarv Sri Baijnath Yadav, Jawahar Verma, ! JeWdhan Yadav, Rajpati Harigan and Gulla Hajjam and it purports to have been signed by 369 out of total strength of 536 members of the Gaon Sabha. The prescribed Authority/District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ballia fixed 11-9-1992 vide order impugned in the Writ Petition as the date for consideration on the motion of no-confidcnce and authorised the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) Vikas Khand Chilkahar, Ballia to preside over the said meeting on his behalf. It may be observed that an order fixing date for discussion on the no-confidence motion moved against the Pradhan or Up/Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha under the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 (in short the Act) read with U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules (in short the 'Rules') being, only a step towards the no-confidence motion, is ordinarily not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution until the no-confidence meeting is held and the result of the meeting declared, but in the instant case the Court enteratined the Writ Petition and granted time on 8-9-1992 to the parties' learned Counsel to exchange affidavits and also passed an interim order to the erfect that the no-confidence meeting might be held as scheduled in accordance with law but the result would not be declared until further orders of this Court. The interim order at the initial stage was made operative till 30th September, 1992 but it was extended from time to time. The specially convened meeting for consideration on the no-confidence motion moved against the Petitioner has already taken place as scheduled but its result has not been declared thus far due to the interim order passed by this Court. Under the circumstances, J think it proper not to dismiss the Writ Petition as premature. Further it is true that the Petitioner has not made any prayer for quashing the minutes of the meeting held on 11-9-1992-ia fact he could not have done so in view of the, fact that the Writ Petition was filed before the meeting could be held. But since the question regarding the validity of the meeting was argued at the Bar without any demur from the side of the Respondents and by interim order the Court has stayed the declaration of the result of the meeting dated 11-94992, I have gone into the question even in absence of any specific prayer and the ground in this regard in the Writ Petition. The parties' learned Counsel were accordingly heard.

(3.) It may be observed that despite several opportunities being given, the Standing Counsel could not file counter-affidavit although he participated in the argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioner on one hand and the fifth Respondent on the other on the basis of the affidavits exchanged between them.