SHAMBHOO SINGH Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha. A notice to move a motion of non-confidence against him was presented as contemplated by rule 33-B of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rule). 26th September, 1983 was the date fixed for the meeting to consider the motion. On inquiry made before that date, however, it transpired that the notice did not contain the signatures of more than 50 per cent of the members of the Gaon Sabha. THE meeting was consequently cancelled. THEreafter, another notice was given on 21st September, 1983. This notice ex facie contained the signatures or thumb impressions of more than 50 per cent of the members of the Gaon Sabha. On the basis of this notice a meeting of the Gaon Sabha was convened for 12th October, 1983. On that date, the requisite motion was moved and carried by a majority of more than two-third of the members present and voting. By this writ petition the proceedings of that meeting are sought to be quashed.

(2.) IT has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner that even the second notice was not signed by more than 50 per cent of the members of the Gaon Sabha and an inquiry should have been made in this regard. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner even though a request was made in this behalf but no heed was paid to it. We find it difficult to agree with this submission. A copy of the application, which is said to have been made in this connection by the petitioner, has been attached as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. ITs perusal indicates that neither any specific assertion was made therein that the notice did not contain the signatures of more than 50 per cent of the members of the Gaon Sabha, nor was any request made for making an inquiry. On the other hand, the said application purports to raise an objection contemplated by sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The application was dismissed by the authority concerned by an order, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. In our opinion, it was rightly dismissed, because on the face of it section 14 (3) of the Act was not applicable inasmuch as the said section applies only to a case where the motion could not be taken up for want of quorum or failed for lack of requisite majority at the meeting. In the instant case, the meeting scheduled for 26th September, 1983, had not been adjourned for want of quorum, nor had the motion failed.

(3.) IT was then urged by the counsel for the petitioner that two ballot boxes were kept for voting, contrary to the procedure prescribed in rule 33-B of the Rules, one for those who wanted to vote for the motion and the other for those who wanted to vote against it. In this connection, reliance was placed by the petitioner on two photographs filed as Annexures 10 and 11 to the writ petition. After having gone through these photographs we are of the opinion that the submission has no substance. We are further of opinion that even if this submission had any substance it was a mere irregularity and would have no bearing on the result of the voting.