MANGE RAM Vs. DIST PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but an interesting question arises in this writ petition. The question relates to the meaning and scope of Cl. (5)(viii) of R. 33-B, U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 ("Rules"). Rule 33-B provides for removal of the elected Pradhan. Clause 5(viii) thereunder provides that the no-confidence motion shall be deemed to have been carried only when it has been passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members "present and voting." The question is whether "present and voting" mean only "present and casting valid votes and not invalid votes". The decision of this Court in Roop Narain Pandey v. State of U. P., 1984 0 AllLJ 879 has taken the view that it is only the valid votes that should count. The correctness of this decision has been doubted by a Division Bench which has referred this case to a larger Bench. That is how the matter is now before us.

(2.) The facts are these Petitioner was an elected Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Mirpur Sitapur of district Saharanpur. On 27-9-1983, a meeting was convened for considering a 'no-confidence' motion against him. There were, in all, 314 members of the Gaon Sabha present in the meeting. Out of them, 207 voted in favour of the motion while 100 voted against the motion. Seven of the votes were found invalid and so rejected. The Presiding Officer declared the motion as having been passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting. Pradhan challenging the decision of the Presiding Officer has moved this Court for relief under Art.226 of the Constitution.

(3.) If the rejected votes had been taken into consideration for the purpose of counting the required two-thirds majority, the decision of the Presiding Officer would have gone in favour of the Pradhan. The question urged before us is that the Presiding Officer was not justified in excluding the invalid votes for the purpose of considering the majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting.