BHAGWATI DEVI Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. S. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice convening the meeting on no confi dence motion against her issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer Nainital (for short D. P. R. O.) on 18-01-2006 on the ground that the notice was given in violation of the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which re quires 15 days previous notice to be given for a meeting to be convened for the purpose of removing the Gram Pradhan. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the provision of Rule 33-B (2) framed un der the aforesaid Act, which inter-alia provides that "the District Panchayat Raj Officer shall convene a meeting of the Gram Panchayat, under Sec tion 14 of the Act, on a date to be fixed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice. "

(2.) RELEVANT facts of the case, which are in dispute, are that Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition shows that the impugned notice to convene the meeting was issued on 20th January, 2006 and the date fixed for the meeting of no confi dence was 6th February, 2006. It has been contended that the notices have been served on 30th January, 2006. As such, the period between the date of meeting and when the notices were given is less than 15 days. Copy of the order dated 18-01-2006, which was issued by District Panchayat Raj Officer (copy enclosed at page 15 to the writ petition) reveals that the motion was made on 7-01-2006 and the meeting was being con vened on 6-2-2006, i. e. on 31st day. It is thus amply clear that provision of Rule 33-B (2) framed under the said Act was complied with.

(3.) A Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting re spondents as well as by the State on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 6.