LAWS(ALL)-1993-7-20

BADAN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER

Decided On July 15, 1993
BADAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, one Ram Dass put in apperance and filed an application on 29th April. 1993 praying for the impleadment which was allowed and he was directed to be impleaded as Respondent no 4. Alongwith this application he also filed a short counter affidavit oil 21st May, 1993. Thereafter aforesaid Ram Dass filed a supplementary affidavit dated 7th May, 1993 annexing therewith result of the no confidence motion dated 2nd May, 1993, Petitioner also filed two supplementary affidavit dated 27th April, 1993 and 29th April, 1993.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and learned Counsel for newly impleaded Respondent No. 4. Learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage.

(3.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was elected Up-Pradhan of the village Fatehullahpur, Block Sahpau, district Mathura in the year 1988 and one Ram Dayal was elected Pradhan of the village. However, Ram Dayal died on 14th March, 1993 and thus office of the Pradhan fell vacant and under Section 12-J of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, (herein-after referred to as 'Act') petitioner claimed that he is entitled to officiate as Pradhan during the vacancy. On this District Panchayat Raj Officer wrote a letter dated 2nd April, 1993 to the son of late Ram Dayal to handover charge to petitioner. However this attempt on the part of the petitioner generated the dispute and on 3rd April, 1993 no confidence motion was moved for removal of the petitioner. On this no confidence motion a notice was issued on 6th April, 1993 fixing 16th April, 1993 to hold a meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion. This notice was challenged in a writ petition before this Court. As the notice was not for the clear 15 days as required under Section 14 of the Act, the writ petition was allowed on the short question by order dated 13th April, 1993. The notice was quashed leaving it open to the authorities to issue a fresh notice. A fresh notice was issued on the no confidence motion on 16th April, 1993 fixing 2nd May, 1993 as the date for meeting of the Gram Panchayat for consideration of the motion. This notice is Annexure-15 to the writ, petition which has been challenged in this writ petition. In the writ petition the challenge is that the notice was issued on 16th April, 1993. However it was served on petitioner on 21st April, 1993 and as it is not for clear 15 days, the notice is illegal and liable to be quashed. Supplementary affidavits have been filed by petitioner to substantiate this plea that the notice was not for clear 15 days as required under Section 14 of the Act and as mandatory provisions have been violated the same is liable to be quashed. In the short counter affidavit filed by Sri Ram Dass, Respondent No. 4, it has been averred that the notice for holding meeting on 2nd May, 1993, was served on members of Gaon Panchayat through Chaukidar Moti Ram on 16th April, 1993 itself. A true copy of the notice and the certificate of Moti Ram have been filed as Annexures-1 and 2 to the counter affidavit. As already stated Ram Dass has already filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith result of the meeting held on 2nd may, 1993. However, at the time of hearing notice has been challenged solely on a fresh ground not raised in the writ petition. That ground is that the motion of no confidence was signed by the members of the Gaon Sabha and it was presented by 5 members of the Gaon Sabha; whereas as petitioner is Up-Pradhan the motion of no confidence should have been signed by not less than one half of the total members of Gaon Panchayat and which should have been presented by at least five members signing the notice to the Prescribed Authority.