RAM KARAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondent No. 3. to convene the meeting of no confidence against the Gram Pradhan. Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act has been amended in 1994 by substituting the words "gram Panchayat' in place of the words' Gram Sabha. ' However, there was no corresponding amendment in Rule 33-B of the Rules, and hence this court had passed certain interim orders in some writ petitions to the effect that half of the members of the Gram Sabha must sign the notice for calling the meeting of no confidence. However, in a subsequent case, it was pointed out by learned counsel that Section 113 (2) has been amended by the same Act of 1994 and it was provided therein that where ever the words Gram Sabha" occurred in the Act or Rules, the words "gram Panchayat" should be read. Since my attention had not been invited to Section 113 (2) earlier, it is evi dent that those interim orders were wrongly passed. In my opinion, R. 33-B should be deemed to be amended in 1994 and now only half of the members of the Gram Panchayat need to sign the notice for calling the meeting of no confidence and not half the member of the Gram Sabha. It appears that in view of the earlier interim orders which had been wrongly passed by this Court, there arose a necessity for clarifica tion from the State Government. In my view, this clarification is now no longer necessary since this Court holds that Rule 33-B must be deemed to have been amended in view of Section 113 (2) of the Act, and the words 'gram Sabha' mentioned therein should be interpreted as 'gram Panchayat'.

(2.) IN view of this, I dispose of this peti tion finally with the direction that if half of the members of Gram Panchayat have signed the notice for calling the meeting of no confidence, the said meeting should be held expeditiously in accordance with law. Petition disposed .