SHYAM LAL Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER UNNAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHYAM Lal has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the proceedings of the meeting dated 20-5-1975 in which the motion of no confidence was passed be quashed along with the notice dated 8-51975 convening the aforesaid meeting. He has also prayed for an issue of a mandamus forbearing the opposite parties from giving effect to the proceedings which took place on 20-5-1975 in which the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner is said to have been passed.

(2.) THE petitioner was elected in May/June, 1972, as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Jagdishpur, Pargana Jhalotar Ajgain, Tahsil Hasanganj District Unnao for a period of five years. On 23-4-1975 some members presented a motion of no-confidence before the District Panchayat Raj Officer. It is said that about 437 members of the said Gaon Sabha were signatories to this resolution. A notice of the meeting was issued on 8-5-1975 to call a meeting of the members of Gaon Sabha on 20-5-1975, in the Primary Pathshala for consideration of the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. In pursuance of this instruction a notice was served on the Pradhan by affixation, as he was not present in the house and by a beat of drum on 5-5-1975. THE petitioner asserts that in the meeting held on 20-5-1975 1975 he was not allowed to address the members and a quarrel took place in the said meeting and on account of pandemonium the police intervention had to be sought and the voting was not free. However, a resolution was passed in the meeting. One hundred and ninety seven votes were cast in favour of the motion of no-confidence and seven votes were declared invalid. THE petitioner, feeling aggrieved, moved this Court by means of this petition challenging the said notice issued for convening the meeting on the ground that there was violation of Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act inasmuch as 14 days notice for convening the meeting was not given. As, according to him, the notice was issued under signatures of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Unnao on 8-5-1975 and it was on 15-5-1975 that the Block Development Officer had written on its margin that this letter may be sent to the petitioner. This has been attached as Annexure 1. He has also questioned that the procedure prescribed in Rule 33-B (iii) had not been complied with and the members who came to participate in the proceedings were not allowed to enter the campus. In the circumstances the entire proceedings held on 20-5-1975 were illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the provision of Section 14 was only directory in nature and not mandatory and as such if 15 days had not clearly lapsed the meeting could not be held to be illegally convened. To support his view reliance was placed on K. Narasimhiah v. H. C. Singri Gowda, (AIR 1966 SC 330). THE learned counsel maintained that the meeting thus could not be said to be illegally convened and he further argued that the office being of a representative, nature could not be held by a person against whom a mandate of the electorate had been passed and signified. I have given my anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties and I am of the opinion that the case relied upon by the learned counsel is not of any avail to him. THE Supreme Court in that case while interpreting the Mysore Town Municipalities Act observed: "To ascertain the information the Court has to examine carefully the object of the statute, the consequence that may follow from insisting on a strict observance of a particular provision and above all the general scheme of the other provisions of which it forms a part." Applying these tests the court in that case held that the provision of Section 27 (2) of the Mysore Municipalities Act envisaging three clear days notice was directory and not mandatory. I have gone through the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Act and I have no hesitation in holding that this provision contained in Section 14 is mandatory in nature. It is not provided anywhere in the Act or in the Section that a notice of shorter period could be given in order to consider the resolution of vote of no- confidence. THE Pradhan could be removed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting at the meeting specially convened for the purpose of considering the no confidence motion. This section also provides that a meeting for removal of the Pradhan shall not be convened within one year of his election. In sub-sec. (3) of Section 14 it is provided 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. Sub-section (4) provides that procedure for the removal of a Pradhan shall be such as may be prescribed under rules.