THAKUR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE elected Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat in question is stated to have expired. Pending regular election qua the vacancy so caused, a meeting of the Gram Sabha was called for the purposes of authorizing one of the members to discharge duties and functioning of the Pradhan for the interregnum. In the meeting convened for the purpose on 1.05.2009 three members exercised their option in favour of the writ petitioner while two persons exercised option in favour of respondent Genda Devi. However subsequently on 02.05.2009 one Chauthi who did not attend the meeting filed an affidavit stating that he is also exercising his option in favour of Genda Devi. THE District Magistrate, therefore, found that the petitioner as well as Genda Devi are supported by three members each. Having regard to the age of Genda Devi it was decided that she be authorized to discharge duties of the Gram Pradhan, till the fresh elections are held. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had received higher number of options on 01.05.2009 in the open meeting and further since if it is accepted that both the petitioner and the Genda Devi had received same number of options, there should have been draw of lots between petitioner and respondent Genda Devi. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. It is not in dispute that under the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, no procedure for election of the Officiating Pradhan till regular election is held for the office of the remaining term has been provided for. A discretion has been conferred upon the District Magistrate to appoint a suitable person as Pradhan for the interregnum. However this Court has held in various judgments that opinion of the member of the Gram Panchayat need be obtained before such officiating appointment is made. From the facts on record, it is apparent that meeting was convened for ascertaining the views of the members of the Gram Panchayat. Both the petitioners had received three options. THE District Magistrate having regard to the fact that Genda Devi is senior in age has exercised his discretion in her favour qua working as Officiating Pradhan during interregnum. THEre is no statutory or any other legal right of the petitioner to claim appointment as Officiating Pradhan. I am satisfied that the order of the District Magistrate is based on good and valid ground, at least it cannot be said to be arbitrary. No case for interference with the order impugned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made out. Writ petition is dismissed.