KUBER SINGH Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only moot point for consideration in the present writ petition !s whether a motion of no-confidence brought against Smt. Nathiya Devl-respondent No. 4 who admittedly is elected Pradhan of the village had been carried out in the meeting, which was convened on 16.12.1996 in pursuance of the notice issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer-respondent No. 1 (for short 'D.P.R.O.') or not. in view of the admitted position that out of 11 members present and voting, only 7 members had voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence while four voted against it.

(2.) Smt. Nathiya Devi-respondent No. 4 was elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bhurchuni, Block Dhata, in district Fatehpur on 20th April, 1995. On 20.11.1996, an application was moved duly signed by 9 members of the Gram Panchayat before the respondent No. 1 to convene a meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence against respondent No. 4. Kuber Sirigh-petitioner is the Up Pradhan of the village. He was also one of the signatories to the application. Respondent No. 1 issued a notice on 29.11.1996 to convene a meeting on 16.12.1996 in which a motion of no-confidence was to be put to vote after discussion, Accordingly, the meeting was held in which out of 1 1 members, present and voting, seven members voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence ; four members voted against it. Respondent No. 1 held that the motion of no-confidence has not been carried out as it did not receive approval of two-thirds of the members present and voting. The petitioner, who was aggrieved with the decision of the respondent No. 1 made a number of representations and filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 25409 of 1997 with the prayer that the respondent No. 1, be directed to declare that the no-confidence motion has been carried out. The said petition was finally disposed of on 6.8.1997 with the observation that the respondent No. 1 shall pass appropriate speaking orders on the representation of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said order, the respondent No. I has passed the Impugned order dated 15.9.1997. a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition by observing that the no-confidence motion has failed as signatories to the notice failed to muster the support of the two-thirds of the members present and voting in the meeting convened on 16.12.1996. It was maintained that respondent No. 4-Smt. Nathiya Devl continues to be Pradhan of the village. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed which was admitted on 27.11.1997 and the operation of the impugned order dated 15.9.1997. passed by the respondent No. 1 rejecting the representation of the petitioner was stayed till further orders. It appears that the D.P.R.O.. without realising the real import and implications of the order of stay dated 27.11.1997 passed by this Court directed the respondent No. 4 to hand over the charge to the petitioner on 12.1.1998. The respondent No. 4 was. perhaps, reluctant to hand over charge. An F.I.R. was lodged against her in pursuance of which she was arrested and subsequently bailed out. By order dated 27.11.1997 passed by this Court, the order dated 15.9.1997 by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected was stayed. By no stretch of imagination it could be inferred from the stay order that no-confidence motion against the respondent No. 4 shall be deemed to have been carried out. The conduct of the respondent No. 1. who is highly responsible officer, cannot but be deprecated. The absurd interpretation put by the respondent No. 1 has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as. the respondent No. 4, an elected Pradhan and against whom vote of no-confidence had failed, had to suffer indignity and humiliation, as, she was taken into custody and sent to Jail for not handing over the charge. In spite of the fact that there was no order of this Court to the effect that the respondent No. 4 shall hand over the charge to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 overplayed the controversy and forced the respondent No, 4 to hand over the charge. As to what action should be taken against Mahendra Singh, D.P.R.O., Fatehpur-respondent No. 1, is a matter which can properly be dealt with by the departmental authorities.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by Mahendra Singh, respondent No. 1 Smt. Nathiya Devi-respondent No. 4 has also filed a separate counter-affidavit. The petitioner. has filed a rejoinder-affidavit. A supplementary counter-affidavit has also been filed by Smt. Nathiya Devi respondent No. 4 after she was released on bail and had been forcibly stripped off the charge of the office of Pradhan.