OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was holding the office of Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha Bhaikuri, Pargana and Tehsil Sikandra Rao, Block Hsayan, district Aligrah. A motion of no confidence was moved against the petitioner and 28th September, 1983, was the date fixed for the consideration of the said motion. Subsequently, however, on verification it transpired that the motion had been signed by less than half of the members of the Gaon Sabha and since sub-rule (1) of rule 33-B of U. P. Panchayat Raj rules (hereinafter referred to as the rules/ prescribes that such a motion shall be signed by not less than one half of the total number of members of the Gaon Sabha, an order was passed on 20th September, 1983, cancelling the meeting scheduled for 28th September, 1983. About four days later another motion of no confidence was presented against the petitioner on 24th September, 1983. On its basis a meeting of the Gaon Sabha was convened for 22nd October, 1983, as contemplated by section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the meeting so convened 853 members of the Gaon Sabha participated, out of whom 596, voted in favour of the motion of no confidence and 257 against it. Since the motion was carried by a majority of more than two thirds of the members present and voting the petitioner was removed from the office of Pradhan as contemplated by section 14 (1) of the Act. It is this order which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

(2.) IT was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the meeting scheduled for 28th September 1983, for consideration of the earlier motion of no confidence had been cancelled the subsequent meeting convened for 22nd October, 1983, was barred by section 14 (3) of the Act. We find it difficult to agree with this submission. Sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Act contemplates that if the motion is not taken up for want of quorum or fails for lack of requisite majority at the meeting, no subsequent meeting for the removal of the same Pradhan shall be convened within a year of the date of the previous meeting. In the instant case, the meeting scheduled for 28th September, 1983, was not cancelled for want of quorum, nor did it fail for lack of requisite majority at the meeting. Apparently, therefore, subsection (3) of section 14 of the Act was not attracted.

(3.) IT was then urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings of the meeting held on 22nd October, 1983, were vitiated on account of malafides. After going through the writ petition, the supplementary affidavit dated 7th November, 1983, referred to above, and the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners we are of opinion that no case of malafides whatsoever has been established. The counsel for the petitioner has, in this connection, brought to our notice copy of an application by the Up Pradhan stating that he had no notice of the meeting held on 22nd October, 1983 and that he never made any application in that meeting. On its basis, it was urged that since there is a mention in the impugned order that an application had been made by the Up Pradhan on behalf of the Pradhan with a request to be permitted to be present at the time of voting, the proceedings were mala fide. We fail to see how any malafide conduct can be imputed on its basis on the authorities concerned. Whether or not such an application was made was, in our opinion, hardly relevant for the validity of the meeting.