DEVI SINGH Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was holding an office of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Nagala Aliya, Post Office Gangchauli, Tahsil Hathras, District Aligarh. A notice of an intention to move a motion of non-confidence against the petitioner was delivered to District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, the respondent No. 1. This notice was given by the respondents nos. 5 to 9 by their application dated 9-3-1984. On receipt of the said notice the District Panchayat Raj Adhikari fixed 6-4-1984 as the date for the meeting of the Gaon Sabha at 10 A. M. at Basic Primary Pathshala Nagala Aliya. He directed the Vikas Khand Adhikari, the respondent No. 2 to enquire into the matter and further that due information be given about the meeting, its place and date by affixing notices at conspicuous places in the area of Gaon Sabha and publicity should also be made by beat of drums. THE respondent No. 2 was required to report compliance by 23-3-1984. Ultimately the motion was carried out by the requisite majority. Consequently the respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 7-4-1984 by which he removed the petitioner from the office of Pradhan and directed that charge be handed over to the respondent no. 4 the Up-Pradhan. THE petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari against the order dated 7-4-1984 and a further relief, by making an amendment application praying that resolution dated 6-4-1984 by which the motion was carried out be also quashed.

(2.) THIS writ petition is opposed by the respondents. Once counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, by Sri Sugriv Singh who was the Presiding Officer in the meeting held on 6-4-1984. Another counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent No. 4.

(3.) RELYING upon the aforesaid rule and the expression " which shall not be later than thirty days " contained therein the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the motion of non-confidence could not have been carried out unless a period of thirty days had expired from the date when the notice was given, namely, on 9-3-1984. The meetting which was held on 6-4-1984 was illegal and invalid.