SURYA PRAKASH DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Girish Kumar Singh appears for contesting respondent. Learned Standing Counsel appears for State-respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner alongwith four other members of the Gram Sabha, Ram Nagar, presented a motion to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Pilibhit to con vene a meeting to consider a 'no confidence motion' vide notice dated 2. 11. 2007 signed by 1189 members of Gaon Sabha. THE District Panchayat Raj Officer nominated the District Horticulture Officer Pilibhit to verify these signatures. He made a proclamation by beat of drums in the village on 12. 11. 2007 calling the villagers to assemble on 14. 11. 2007 for verifying the signatures. THE District Hor ticulture Officer found that 913 persons/villagers did not appear to verify their signatures and thumb impressions and that 16 persons present expressed their doubts over the signatures/thumb impressions. On the next day, on 15. 11. 2007, on receiving the report, the District Panchayat Raj Officer found that the notice was not verified and cancelled the same.

(3.) IN the Full Bench case of Mathura Prasad Tewari v. Assistant District Panchayat Ra} Officer, 1966 ALJ 672 (FB) Hon. M. C. Desai, C. J. , observed as follows: "the most that can be said is that the matter is in the discretion of the Prescribed Authority if a complaint is made to it that material number of signatures is invalid, it may in its discretion, make enquiry or refuse to make it. " Similar is the view taken by Hon'ble Satish Chandra, J. as he then was, in Daya Shankar v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, 1968 ALJ 753: "the Prescribed Authority was not obliged by law to make an enquiry into the genuineness or otherwise of the signatures appended to the notice. The enquiry directed to be conducted in the instant case was informal for the personal satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority for which the Pradhan or other members of the Gaon Sabha have no concern or interest. "