BABU RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution has been filed for issuance of a writ of ccrftorori quashing the proceedings dated 20.3.1997 in which the petitioner was removed by vote of no-confidence at a meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Govlndpur convened and held under Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The minutes of the meeting held on 20,3.1997 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) show that 12 out of 13 members of the Gram Panchayat were present at the meeting and all of them exercised their franchise. Eight votes were polled in favour and four against the motion of no-confidence. The motion was declared to have been passed and the petitioner removed from the office of the Pradhan. It appears that charge could not be handed over due to certain order of stay passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8811 of 1997. Subsequently the said petition came to be dismissed and interim order vacated vide order dated 22.8.1997. Consequently, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Meerut by his order dated 9.9.1997 directed that charge of the office of Pradhan be handed over to the Up-Pradhan. The said order dated 9.9.1997 has also been impugned in the instant writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri Vijay Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kripa Shanker Singh for the State Authorities.

(3.) Although several grounds have been taken in the writ petition to assail the Impugned orders, but the learned counsel for the petitioner circumscribed bis submission to the only point that the proceedings at the meeting of no-confidence were vitiated because of reasons that the petitioner, who also happened to be the member of the Gram Panchayat by virtue of Section 12 (6) of the Act, was not allowed to cast his vote. Learned counsel urged that if the vote of the petitioner was also taken into account then in that event, the motion would have fallen to the ground for want of requisite majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting at the meeting. Sri Kripa Shankar Slngh, learned standing counsel refuted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and tried to urge that only elected members of the Gram Panchayat were entitled to cast their votes and the Pradhan had no right to vote at a meeting convened for discussion on the motion of no-confidence brought against him. Learned standing counsel also urged that from the proceedings dated 20.3.1997, it would be evident that the petitioner participated in the deliberation of the meeting and exercised his franchise on the motion of no-confidence brought against him and. therefore, urged the learned standing counsel, the motion was rightly declared to have been passed.