RAJ SINGH Vs. DIST PANCHAYAT RAJ ADHIKARI MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Singh, J. The only point pressed in this petition is that Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat is not entitled to cast his vote on the motion of no-confidence brought against him.

(2.) THE facts are that the Gram Panchayat Budhai Khurd Block Charthawal, district Muzaffarnagar consists of Pradhan and 13 members elected from dif ferent constituencies of the concerned Panchayat areas; a written notice of no con fidence against the Pradhan was given by the members of the Gram Panchayat to the Dis trict Panchayat Raj Officer who convened a meeting of the Gram Panchayat in accord ance with Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with the rule 33-B of the Rules framed thereunder as amended upto date; twelve out of thirteen members are said to have participated (n the meeting while one Ghamandi Lal remained absent; eight votes are said to have been cast in favour of the motion of no-confidence, whereas five including Pradhan are said to have voted against the motion. It is upon these facts that the learned counsel appear ing for the petitioner urged that since the Pradhan was not the member of the Gram Panchayat, the vote cast by him was not liable to be taken into consideration and therefore, the motion would be deemed to have been carried inasmuch as eight out of twelve members present and voting had voted in favour of the motion. Thus the motion was carried by majority of two-thirds members present and voting.