CHANDRA KALA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) NO notice is being issued to private respondents in view of the order proposed to be passed today.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that before the District Panchayat Raj Officer an objection was filed by him to the effect that enquiry be got conducted to satisfy as to whether the signatures of the persons appended on the Motion of No Confidence were those of the members of the Gram Panchayat or not. The objection so filed by the petitioner has been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and is dated 11th November, 2008. It is alleged that despite the said objection the District Panchayat Raj Officer did not hold any enquiry and has proceeded to issue notice dated 11th November, 2008 fixing 3rd December, 2008 as the date for convening of the meeting. With reference to Rule 33B (3) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules, it is stated that the District Panchayat Raj Officer was required to satisfy himself as to whether the signatures appended to the Motion of No Confidence were those of the members of the Gram Panchayat or not and since no such exercise has been undertaken despite the complaint of the petitioner for such verification, notice issued was rendered illegal, consequently all subsequent action also fall.