RAM BHAJAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. N. Gupta, J. The petitioner was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Mohammad-pur Deena, Tahsil Mohammadi, district Kheri. On 15-2-97, District Panchayat Raj Officer received a Motion of No-confidence against the petitioner duly signed by more than half of the members of the said Gram Panchayat mentioning reasons therein. They also filed Notary affidavits regarding genuineness of their signatures. According to District Panchayat Raj Officer, after he was prima facie satisfied about genuineness of the signatures of the members of the Gram Panchayat on the Motion of No-con fidence, he issued a notice dated 22-2-97 convening the meeting of the said Gram Panchayat for 14-3-97 for considering the Motion of No- confidence, the information for which was sent to all the members of Gram Panchayat. On 14-3-97 the meeting was held. All the 11 members of the Gram Panchayat participated in the meeting and cast their votes. 7 votes were cast in favour of Motion of No-confidence, 3 votes were cast against the Motion and 1 vote was declared invalid because the voter had put his thumb impression on the ballot paper which was against the Rules. According to the petitioner, the rejected vote was against the Motion of No- confidence. Section 14 (1) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') and its corresponding Rule 33-B (5) (viii) provide that the Motion shall be deemed to have been carried out only when it has been passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting. The Presiding Officer declared that the Motion of No-confidence has been car ried out against the petitioners as it has been passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting. This writ peti tion has been preferred challenging the said decision of the Presiding Officer of the meeting. It has been prayed that the proceedings of the meeting dated 14-3-97 be quashed and it be declared that the Motion of No- confidence has not been carried out against the petitioners by majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting. A further prayer has been made not to give effect the Motion of No-confidence.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner confined this writ petition only to two points. Firstly, it was urged that 7 members out of 11 do not constitute two-thirds of the majority and therefore, Motion of No- Con fidence passed by 7 members has not been carried out. Secondly, it has been contended that notice dated 22-2-97 was served on the petitioner on 2-3-97 and therefore, 15 days clear notice was not given to the petitioner as provided under Section 14 of the Act and Rule 33-B of the Rules and therefore, entire proceedings are bad in law and required to be quashed. In the petition some other points have also been raised but the learned counsel for the petitioner gave up other pleas.

(3.) THE first question for consideration is as to whether that voter whose vote was rejected as invalid shall be counted in the number of voters who actually participated in the meeting convened to consider the motion of no-confidence. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Roop Naram Pandey v. State of U. P and others, 1984 ACJ 399 has held that invalid votes are mere waste papers and are not to be counted for any purpose whatsoever. That case also arose under Section 14 of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act and related to a Motion of No-con fidence against a Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. In that case 399 members were present out of whom 202 had voted in favour of Motion of No- confidence and 92 votes were cast against the Motion and 104 votes which were cast, were found invalid. THE law requires that not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting should vote in favour of the Motion of No- confidence. Presiding Officer did not count 104 persons whose votes had been declared invalid amongst the persons present and voting and declared that the Motion has been carried out by a majority of two- thirds. THE decision of the Presiding Officer was upheld on the ground that invalid votes are more waste papers and are not to be counted at all for any purpose whatsoever. A majority of two-thirds amongst 399 members comes to 267 whereas only 202 persons had cast their votes in favour of the Motion. After exclud ing 104 invalid votes from the figure of 399 it was held that for the purposes of calculat ing two-thirds of the majority it shall be deemed that only 295 persons were present and had voted. THE learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dhan Sahai Singh Verma v. Zila Panchayat Adhikari, [1975 ALR 624, had taken a view that the number of persons who had cast invalid votes, has to be counted in the total number of voters who were present and had voted, was over ruled in this case. While arriving at its decision in the case of Roop Narain Pandey (supra) the Division Bench considered Halsbury's Laws of England, Words and Phrases, permanent edition, cumulative Supplement 1980 and Kaul and Shakdher's Practice and Procedure of Parliament, Third Edition, Volume II.