Chandan Singh Panwar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

Before venturing into the merits of the matter on considering the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties it becomes essential for the Court to deal with certain provisions of law. It is not in dispute that so far as the matter pertaining to the continuance or non continuance of Block Pramukh is concerned the same is governed by the provisions contained under, Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016. The State of Uttarakhand by virtue of the Act No. 11/2016 has promulgated the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016. Though there are various provisions referred in it, but the one with which we would be concerned would be the interpretation to the definition of the Prescribed Authority as defined under sub-section

(34) of Section 2 of the Act, who happens to be an officer who has been thus notified by the State Government, to act as the Prescribed Authority, in relation to any act or actions which are to be taken under the Act. The said appointment of the Prescribed Authority has to be made by the State by issuance of a gazette notification. Sub section (34) of Section 2 of the Act is quoted hereunder:

"परिभाषाएं 2. जब तक कि प्रसंग या सन्दर्भ से अन्यथा अपेक्षित न हो, इस अधिनियम में:-

(34.) "नियत प्राधिकारी" से ऐसा प्राधिकारी अभिप्रेत है, जो राज्य सरकार द्वारा इस अधिनियम के अधीन किसी प्रयोजन के लिए नियम प्राधिकारी के रूप में राजपत्र से विज्ञप्ति किया गया हो।"

Brief facts which become essential to be considered by this Court are that it chanced so that Block Bhatwari, which was part of the Kshetra Panchayat Bhatwari, Uttarkashi, was ultimately notified as such by virtue of a notification of the delimitation of an area as issued by the State Government on 05.01.2018, being notification No. 69/IV(3)2018-06(04)/2015, whereby, the area of Village Tiloth of Block Bhatwari was brought within the area as notified under the Municipalities Act. Relevant portion of the notification is quoted hereunder:

"उत्तराखण्ड शासन

शहरी विकास अनुभाग-3

संख्या- 69/प्ट(3)/2018-06(04)/2015

देहरादूनः दिनांक 05 जनवरी, 2018

अधिसूचना

राज्यपाल, उत्तराखण्ड "उत्तर प्रदेश नगर पालिका अधिनियम 1916" (उत्तराखण्ड राज्य में यथा प्रवृत्त) की धारा 3 की उप धारा (2) के साथ सपठित "भारत का संविधान" के अनुच्छेद 243ध के दिनांक 23.11.2017 में अग्रेत्तर संशोधन करते हुये जिला उत्तरकाशी के नगर पालिका परिषद, बाड़ाहाट-उत्तरकाशी के प्रादेशिक क्षेत्र में नीचे अनुसूची में उल्लिखित क्षेत्रों को सम्मिलित किये जाने के सम्बन्ध में नगर पालिका परिषद बाड़ाहाट-उत्तरकाशी या प्रादेशिक क्षेत्र अधिसूचित करते हैं:-

अनुसूचना

क्र.सं.

सम्मिलित किये

जाने वाले

राजस्व ग्राम का

नाम

खसरा नं0

क्षेत्रफल (है0 में)

जनसंख्या-2011 के अनुसार

1.

तिलोथ (पूर्ण)

1980

65.107

2993

"

It is by virtue of the implications of inclusion of Village Tiloth of Block Bhatwari, into municipal area of Uttarkashi the petitioner was the member of the Panchayat at the relevant time. It is being argued by the respondent that he would cease to be the member as a consequence of the implications contained under sub-section (4) of Section 53 of the Act. The argument which has been extended by respondent is to the effect that as soon as Village Tiloth of Block Bhatwari is brought within the municipal area and is taken out of the Block as notified under the Act, under the provisions of Panchayat Raj Act, the petitioner would cease to be the member of the Panchayat, and as a consequence thereto, he would also ceased to be the Block Pramukh. Section 53 of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016, is quoted hereunder:

"क्षेत्र पंचायत की सदस्यता के लिए अनर्हता 53

(1) कोई व्यक्ति किसी क्षेत्र पंचायत सदस्य के निर्वाचन के लिए अनर्ह होगा, यदि -

(क) वह राज्य विधान मण्डल के निर्वाचनों के प्रयोजनों के लिए तत्सयम प्रवृत्त किसी विधि द्वारा या उसके अधीन अनर्ह हो; परन्तु यह कि कोई व्यक्ति इस आधार पर अनर्ह नहीं होगा कि वह पच्चीस वर्श से कम आयु का है, यदि उसने इक्सीस वर्श की आयु पूरी कर ली हो।

(ख) वह ग्राम पंचायत/क्षेत्र पंचायत /जिला पंचायत का वैतनिक सेवक हो;

(ग) वह किसी राज्य सरकार या केन्द्र सरकार या ग्राम पंचायत से भिन्न किसी स्थानीय प्राधिकारी, या किसी राज्य सरकार या केन्द्रीय सरकार के स्वामित्वाधीन या नियंत्रणाधीन या किसी राज्य सरकार या केन्द्रीय सरकार के स्वामित्वाधीन या नियंत्रणाधीन किसी बोर्ड, निकाय या निगम, के अधीन लाभ का कोई पद धारण करता हो जिसमें सहायता प्राप्त विद्यालय, में सेवारत अध्यापक, कर्मचारी, आंगनबाड़ी कार्यकर्ती, सहायिका, सहकारी समिति के सचिव एवं वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी तथा राज्य एवं केन्द्र पोशित योजनाओं के अन्तर्गत मानदेय पर कार्यरत कर्मचारी भी सम्मिलित है;

(घ) वह किसी राज्य सरकार, केन्द्रीय सरकार या किसी स्थानीय प्राधिकारी या किसी अन्य पंचायत की सेवा से दुराचरण के कारण पदच्युत कर दिया गया हो;

(ड.) उस पर ऐसी अवधि के लिए जैसी नियत की जाये, क्षेत्र पंचायत का कोई कर, फीस, शुल्क या कोई अन्य देय बकाया हो, या वह क्षेत्र पंचायत के अधीन कोई पद धारण करने के कारण प्राप्त उसके किसी अभिलेख या सम्पत्ति को उसे देने में, उसके द्वारा ऐसा किये जाने की अपेक्षा किये जाने पर भी, विफल रहा हो;

(च) किसी नगर निकाय का अध्यक्ष या उपाध्यक्ष हो;

(छ) वह अनुत्मोचित दिवालिया हो;

(ज) वह नैतिक अधमता के किसी अपराध के लिए दोशसिद्ध ठहराया गया हो;

(झ) उसे आवश्यक वस्तु अधिनियम, 1955 के अधीन दिये गये किसी आदेश का उल्लंघन करने के कारण तीन मास की अवधि के कारावास का दण्ड दिया गया हो।

(ञ) उसे ऐसोसियेशन सप्लाइज (टेम्परेरी पावर्स) ऐक्ट, 1946 के अधीन दिये गये किसी आदेश का उल्लंघन करने के कारण छः मास से अधिक की अवधि के कारावास का या निर्वासन का दण्ड दिया गया हो।

(ट) उसे संयुक्त प्रान्त आबकारी अधिनियम, 1910 (उत्तराखण्ड राज्य में यथाप्रवृत्त) के अधीन तीन मास से अधिक की अवधि के कारावास का दण्ड दिया गया हो।

(ठ) उसे स्वापक औशधि और मनःप्रभावी पदार्थ अधिनियम, 1985 के अधीन किसी अपराध के लिये दोशसिद्ध ठहराया गया हो।

(ड) उसे निर्वाचन सम्बन्धी किसी अपराध के लिए दोश सिद्ध ठहराया गया हो।

(ढ) उसे संयुक्त प्रान्त सामाजिक निर्योग्यताओं का निराकरण मूल अधिनियम, 1947 या सिविल अधिकार संरक्षण अधिनियम, 1955 (उत्तराखण्ड राज्य में यथाप्रवृत्त) के अधीन दोषसिद्ध ठहराया गया हो।

(ण) उसे धारा 138 के अधीन पद से हटा दिया गया हो, जब तक कि ऐसी अवधि, जैसी कि उक्त धारा में इस निमित्त व्यवस्था की गई हो, या ऐसी न्यूनतर अवधि जैसा कि राज्य सरकार ने किसी विशेष मामले में आदेश दिया हो, व्यतीत न हो गई हो, परन्तु यह कि यथास्थिति बकायों का भुगतान कर दिये जाने या अभिलेख या सम्पत्ति दे दिये जाने पर खण्ड (ड.) के अधीन अनर्हता नरह जायेगी;

परन्तु यह और कि प्रथम परन्तुक में निर्दिश्ट किन्हीं भी खण्डों के अधीन अनर्हता राज्य सरकार द्वारा नियत रीति से हटाई जा सकेगी।

(त) यदि किसी क्षेत्र पंचायत की महिला सदस्य/प्रमुख/ज्येश्ठ उप प्रमुख/कनिश्ठ उप प्रमुख के स्थान पर उसका पति या अन्य पारिवारिक सदस्य या रिश्तेदार क्षेत्र पंचायत की बैठक की अध्यक्षता एवं कार्यों का निर्वहन करे व उस पर दोश सिद्ध हो जाय, तो वह महिला तथा महिला के स्थान पर बैठक की अध्यक्षता एवं कार्य निवर्हन करने वाला व्यक्ति, दोनों ही अगले त्रिस्तरीय पंचायतों के सामान्य निर्वाचन हेतु अनर्ह होंगे।

(2) भ्रष्टाचार के कारण अनर्हताः- इस अधिनियम या तद्धीन बनाये गये नियमों के अधीन निर्वाचन-विवादों का निर्णय करने के लिए सक्षम कोई अधिकारी किसी उम्मीदवार को जिसके सम्बन्ध में यह कहा जाय कि उसने भ्रश्टाचार किया है, घोशणा के तारीख से पांच वर्श से अनधिक किसी अवधि में क्षेत्र पंचायत प्रमुख अथवा किसी ऐसे पद या स्थान पर जो क्षेत्र पंचायत दे सकती हो या उसके अधिकार में नियुक्त होने या रहने के अयोग्य घोशित कर सकेगा।

(3) शौचालय न होने पर अर्नहता- (क) यदि कोई व्यक्ति मैला जायेंगे।

(4) सदस्यता का न रह जानाः- (एक) क्षेत्र पंचायत का कोई सदस्य उस पंचायत का सदस्य नही रह जायेगा, यदि उस सदस्य से सम्बन्धित प्रविश्टि क्षेत्र पंचायत के प्रादेशिक निर्वाचन क्षेत्र की निर्वाचक नामावली से निकाल दी जाये;

(दो) यदि कोई व्यक्ति उपधारा (1) के अधीन क्षेत्र पंचायत का सदस्य न रह जाये तो वह किसी ऐसे पद पर भी जिस पर वह क्षेत्र पंचायत का सदस्य होने के कारण निर्वाचित, नाम निर्दिश्ट अथवा नियुक्त किया गया हो, नही रहेगा।

(5) अनर्हता सम्बन्धी प्रष्नों का निर्णय- यदि यह प्रश्न उठे कि कोई व्यक्ति इस अधिनियम की किसी धारा में उल्लिखित किसी अनर्हता का भागी हो गया है या नहीं तो उस प्रष्न को निर्णयार्थ विहित अधिकारी को निर्दिश्ट किया जायेगा और उसका निर्णय किसी अपील के परिणाम के अधीन रहते हुए जो विहित की जाए, अन्तिम होगा;

परन्तु यह कि ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति के नाम को जो ऐसी किसी अनर्हता के कारण उस क्षेत्र पंचायत की निर्वाचक नामावली से हटा दिया गया हो तो उस निर्वाचक नामावली में तत्काल फिर से रख दिया जाएगा। यदि ऐसी अनर्हता उस अवधि के दौरान, जिसमें ऐसी नामावली प्रवृत्त रहती है किसी ऐसी विधि के अधीन हटा दी गयी है, जो हटाना प्राधिकृत करती है।

(6) पंचायतों में एक साथ एक से अधिक पद धारण करने का निशेध- कोई व्यक्ति एक साथ क्षेत्र पंचायत के एक से अधिक प्रादेषिक निर्वाचन क्षेत्रों से निर्वाचन में उम्मीदवार नहीं हो सकेगा, और न ही क्षेत्र पंचायत में एक साथ दो पद धारण कर सकेगा।"

As per sub-section (1) of Section 53, though we are not concerned much for the present controversy, but it deals with the conditions of the disabilities, which a member can suffer and which may result into his cessation of membership of the Panchayat area, but still as far as the present case at hand is concerned, it will not fall to be within any of the clauses of disabilities contained under sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Act. For the purposes of the Act, and in particular, where it deals with the procedure for removal of the member of the panchayat there are two provisions which are contemplated under the Act, under sub-section (5) of Section 53, which according to the respondent would only be attracted when he suffers an ineligibility as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Act and not otherwise. According to the respondent the other provision which is provided under the Act for a removal from the membership of the Block is contained under Section 62, which occurs on happening of a certain events or contingencies, which are described and contained therein. Section 62 is also quoted hereunder:

"62. क्षेत्र पंचायत के प्रमुख की अनुपस्थिति में व्यवस्था

जब प्रमुख अनुपस्थित हो, बीमारी अथवा अन्य किसी कारण से अपने कृत्यों का निर्वहन करने में असमर्थ हो और उप प्रमुख का पद रिक्त हो या जब उप प्रमुख, प्रमुख के पद की रिक्ति के दौरान इस अधिनियम के उपबन्धों के अधीन कार्य कर रहा है, भी अपने कृत्यों का निर्वहन अनुपस्थिति, बीमारी या किन्हीं अन्य कारणों से करने में असमर्थ हो तब जिस दिनांक को अनुपस्थित हो, अपने कर्तव्यों को फिर संभाले उस तारीख तक विहित प्राधिकारी लिखित आदेश द्वारा प्रधान के कृत्यों का निर्वहन करने के लिए ऐसी व्यवस्था कर सकेगा, जिसे वह ठीक समझे।"

It becomes relevant to be pointed out at this stage itself that according to the argument which has been extended by the respondent's counsel, it is to the effect that the removal contemplated under Section 53(5) would only be an action when a member suffers from the discrepancy under sub-section (1) of Section 53 and not otherwise and that is why under the Act itself in the Appendix as contained under the Act of 2016 in its column 2 describes the Prescribed Authority and its power being vested to the office of the authorities as contained under Column 3, and for the said purpose, and in particular in relation to the present case, entry 13 and 14 becomes relevant for consideration, which is quoted hereunder:

"परिशिष्ट

उत्तराखण्ड पंचायतीराज अधिनियम, 2016 की सुसंगत धाराओं के अधीन विहित प्राधिकारियों की सूची

क्र. सं.

अधिनियम की धाराय

विहित प्राधिकारी

13

53(5)

उप जिलाधिकारी, अपील के लिए जिलाधिकारी

14

62

मुख्य विकास अधिकारी

As per entry 13, the Prescribed Authority for the purposes of proceeding to remove any member of the Panchayat the power has been vested with the Sub Divisional Magistrate and against his orders the appellate authority has been defined to be the District Magistrate, but so far as it relates to the action taken under Section 62 for removal of a member of Panchayat on the occurrence of the conditions contained therein, the Prescribed Authority has been defined to be the Chief Development Officer, who can take an action on availability of these conditions. The Act which is being intended to be read by the respondent's counsel is to the effect that the Prescribed Authority as provided in Appendix Entry 13, would only be attracted when the removal of member of panchayat is contemplated on account of any discrepancies suffered by him or her, under sub-section (1) of Section 53 of the Act and it will under no circumstances apply in relation to the discrepancies of removal from the membership on occurrence of the condition contained under Section 62, and that is why the legislature has independently defined the prescribed authority for the two provisions distinctly, i.e. under Section 53 and under Section 62 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2016.

The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that as a consequence of the implications of issuance of a notification dated 05.01.2018, of inclusion of the area of village Tiloth, Block Bhatwari in Municipal Area, he would by implications of sub-section (4) of Section 53, would immediately cease to be the member of the Panchayat, and as a consequence thereto, he cannot be permitted to continue as a Block Pramukh, as for continuance in the office of Block Pramukh, the pre condition is that he ought to have been an existing member of the block and that is why the argument extended by the learned counsel for the respondent is to the effect that if such a contingency arises of removal of membership under sub-section (4) of Section 53 of the Act, in that eventuality, the Prescribed Authority for the purposes of the removal from the office has had to be borrowed from the Prescribed Authority as defined under Section 62 of the Act and not the Prescribed Authority as provided under sub-section (5) of Section 53 of the Act.

The logic which has been applied by the learned counsel for the respondent in support of his argument is to the effect that the rights of the Prescribed Authority as contained under entry 13 of the Appendix, which deals with the powers of the Prescribed Authority to be exercised under Section 53 would only be attracted when there is a removal of a person from the membership of the Panchayat on occasioning of any occurrence of event as contemplated under sub section (1) of Section 53 of the Act, and since in the present case, admittedly petitioner according to the counsel for the parties the petitioner, does not suffer from any of the disabilities of ineligibility to continue in the office of Block Pramukh, provided under sub section (1) of Section 53. Hence, it is not necessary that the Prescribed Authority as described and referred in Section 53(5) could be held out to be the competent authority to pass an order, which happens to be one of the ground of challenge of the impugned order by the petitioner.

The contemplated position as would reveal from the record and the statute relied by the parties, is that the petitioner being the resident of village Tiloth of Block Bhatwari on the conclusion of the election process was ultimately elected as Block Pramukh Bhatwari, and he accordingly continue to discharge his responsibilities attached to his office in the said capacity till the issuance of notification dated 05.01.2018, whereby, the said village was declared to be included in the municipality. In that eventuality, it is argued that the reference made in the impugned order was rather an interdepartmental communication, which was made by the Block Pramukh Office, who happens to be Prescribed Authority as notified on 09.06.2017, under Section 62, who has written to the Director for seeking an appropriate direction on the occurrence of the peculiar contingency of the inclusion of the village Tiloth of Block Bhatwari in the municipal area of Uttarakashi.

On the contrary, the argument which has been extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that on the cessation of the membership of the Panchayat of the petitioner as a consequence of declaration of an area as Municipal Area has occasioned on account of the event, which is contemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 53 of the Act, and as such if any action is required to be taken, it ought to be taken by the Prescribed Authority as notified under sub-section (5) of Section 53 of the Act contained in entry 13, i.e. the Sub Divisional Magistrate, and not the prescribed authority as provided under Section 62, which is not attracted in the present case and the circumstances.

This Court is of the view that the argument as extended by the learned counsel for the respondent, to the effect that the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 53 has had to be read and confined to be read only when there happens to be a discrepancy under Section 51 only, and in that eventuality, only the Prescribed Authority, prescribed under entry 13 of the Appendix is competent to take an action. But since according to the respondent the discrepancy suffered by the petitioner was under sub-section (4) of Section 53 the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner pertaining to the lack of competence to pass an order in view of the authority vested with the Prescribed Authority defined thereunder is not available because as per the stand taken by the respondent since the implications of sub-section (4) of Section 53 will not fall to be as a discrepancy under sub section (1) of Section 53. In that eventuality, the prescribed authority provided under sub section (5) of Section 53 would not be the competent authority to take an action, and in that eventuality, according to the respondent it is the prescribed authority, which has been defined under entry 14 of the Appendix as provided under Section 62 would be competent, which has been taken as to be the foundation for passing the impugned order would be the competent Prescribed Authority for the action taken by the order impugned in the petition.

After having considered the rival contentions and after going through the provisions contained under the Act, this Court is of the view that:

(i) the discrepancy of cessation of membership, as from the office of membership of panchayat as suffered by the petitioner was on account of the declaration of village Tiloth, Block Bhatwari, as to be included in the municipal area, it will still fall to be within the ambit of discrepancy covered by sub-section (4) of Section 53, which forms to be the part and parcel of the provisions contained under Section 53 itself.

(ii) the provisions contained under sub section (4) of Section 53, which results into cessation of membership and consequent removal from the office of Block Pramukh, cannot be read in isolation and any cessation of office, as a consequence of the implications of Section 53(4) will also fall to be a disability suffered under Section 53 of the Act itself, and it will not fall to be a discrepancy under Section 62, which the legislature has specifically classified the nature of discrepancies under which the provisions of Section 62 would be attracted. Its altogether a different situation contemplated therein.

Admittedly, according to the controversy and condition as contained under Section 62, which is under consideration at hand, it does not fall to be under any disability governed by Section 62 and thus once the legislature has specifically defined, the Chief Development Officer, as to be the Prescribed Authority for an action under Section 62 of the Act as contained by entry 14 of the Appendix, in that eventuality, the Chief Development Officer, could not have passed any order seeking a direction from the Director as to what action is to be taken under Section 62, particularly, when the petitioner has been removed from the office because of the implications of sub section (4) of Section 53 of the Act due to the Notification dated 05.01.2018 passed under Article 243(?k)(2). Hence, as soon as there is the cessation of membership of the petitioner, because of the notification issued by the State on 05.01.2018, the petitioner suffered from a disability under sub section (4) of Section 53, and in such an eventuality, when a person is rendered incapacitated to hold an office not competent to continue to be the member on account of a situation, which prevailed because of sub-section (4) of Section 53, it will fall to be a disability as contained under sub section (5) of Section 53, for which the legislature has specifically classified the Prescribed Authority, under entry 13 of the Appendix, to be the Sub Divisional Magistrate, and Chief Development Officer, whose powers to act as Prescribed Authority were confined under Section 62 could not have borrowed or sought for any direction from the Director for proceeding to take an action against the petitioner under Section 62 of the Act, as none of the preconditions contemplated under the provisions to attract Section 62 was in existence at the relevant point of time.

Consequently, after having held that once a language of sub section (5) of Section 53 provides that it deals with any of the disability suffered by a member under the aforesaid provisions obviously it would include in it the disability of sub section (4) of Section 53 of the Act too and, if that be so, in that eventuality, it would be exclusively the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who has been notified to function as a Prescribed Authority under the definition of the prescribed authority as provided under sub section (34) of Section 2 of the Act would hold the competence to pass an order.

After having gone through the impugned order, the learned counsel for the respondent has attempted to convince the Court over the dispute from the view point, that it was not an action actually taken of discontinuance of membership of the petitioner from the village Tiloth, Block Bhatwari, but rather it was an inter se communication between the Chief Development Officer, which was made by him by his letter No. 555/23-पं0/परिसीमन/2018-19 दिनांक 22 सितम्बर 2018 dated 22.09.2018, by virtue of which he has a consequence of the Notification No. 69/VI(3)2018-06(04)/2015 dated 05.01.2018 has sought an appropriate direction from the Director as to what action has to be taken under Section 62 of the Act. The relevant part of the impugned order dated 09.10.2018 as passed by the Chief Development Officer is quoted hereunder:

"मुख्य विकास अधिकारी, उत्तरकाशी द्वारा पत्र संख्या 555/23-पं./परिसीमन/2018-19 दिनांक 22.09.2018 में अवगत कराया गया कि शहरी विकास विभाग की अधिसूचना संख्या 69 दिनांक 05.01.2018 द्वारा विकास खण्ड भटवाड़ी की कतिपय ग्राम पंचायतों को नगर पालिका परिषद बाड़ाहाट-उत्तरकाशी में सम्मिलित किया गया है, जिसमें क्षेत्र पंचायत भटवाड़ी का प्रादेशिक निर्वाचन क्षेत्र 29-तिलोथ-द्वितीय (जिसमें ग्राम पंचायत तिलोथ के प्रादेशिक निर्वाचन क्षेत्र-8 से 13 सम्मिलित है), श्री चन्दन सिंह पंवार, प्रमुख, क्षेत्र पंचायत भटवाड़ी, जिनका नाम ग्राम पंचायत तिलोथ के प्रादेशिक निर्वाचन क्षेत्र-9 की मतदाता सूची में क्रमांक-1884 पर अंकित है। चूँकि क्षेत्र पंचायत प्रमुख का निर्वाचक नामावली में सम्मिलित क्षेत्र नगरीय क्षेत्र में शामिल हो गया है, ऐसी स्थिति में प्रमुख, क्षेत्र पंचायत भटवाड़ी, के अवशेष कार्यकाल के संबंध में उत्तराखण्ड पंचायतीराज अधिनियम, 2016 की धारा 62 के अनुसार मार्गदर्शन चाहा गया है।

उपरोक्त परिस्थिति में उत्तराखण्ड पंचायतीराज अधिनियम की धारा 62 के अनुसार विहित प्राधिकारी (अधिसूचना संख्या 912/ग्प्प्/2017-2017-86(20)/2017 दिनांक 09.06.2017 के तहत् धारा 62 में मुख्य विकास अधिकारी), उत्तरकाशी को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि क्षेत्र पंचायत भटवाड़ी के प्रमुख पद के कार्य/दायित्वों के निर्वहन के दृष्टिगत उत्तराखण्ड पंचायतीराज अधिनियम, 2016 की धारा 62 में प्राप्त अधिकारों के तहत् प्रमुख पद का प्रभार दिये जाने हेतु नियमानुसार कार्यवाही करने का कष्ट करें।"

There are two aspects, which are quite apparent are that, one, the germination of an action has taken place due to the issuance of a Notification No. 69/VI(3)2018-06(04)/2015 dated 05.01.2018 resulting into inclusion of the area of village Tiloth, Block Bhatwari in municipal area with which this Court is not concerned at this stage. Second, the implications, which would flow from it. It is hereby held that if as a consequence of the notification dated 05.01.2018, which had resulted into a cessation of membership from the Panchayat area, it would be a discrepancy to continue to be a member of Panchayat and would fall to be a subject matter of adjudication under sub section (5) of Section 53 of the Act, and in that eventuality, the directions as sought for by the Chief Development Officer, for taking an action if all required ought to have been initiated at the behest of the instructions of the Prescribed Authority as contained, under entry 13 of the Appendix, which is the Sub Divisional Magistrate and not by the Chief Development Officer as intended by the impugned order. Further more, the reference to Section 62 of the Act, herein for passing the order is absolutely a nonest exercise and a reference of the same as has been made in the impugned order to provide an authenticity of the action being taken by the Chief Development Officer, who would otherwise fall to be the Prescribed Authority under Section 62 of the Act, despite the reason that no action or discrepancy contained under Section 62 was suffered by the petitioner. Hence, Section 62 will not be attracted, thus the action of Chief Development Officer by impugned order was without jurisdiction.

In that view of the matter, since the initiation of the proceedings itself by the impugned order dated 09.10.2018, has been at the behest of the Chief Development Officer, who does not fall to be the Prescribed Authority under Section 53 of the Act as defined under sub section (34) of Section 2 of the Act, it would result into rendering the impugned order to be initiated without any competence and thus it deserves to be quashed. Apart from it, even for a moment if it is presumed that the prescribed authority could have proceeded with taking action under Section 62 of the Act, i.e. the Chief Development Officer, there was no necessity for him to seek directives from the Director, as to what action has to be taken when a situation of the nature in question has arisen under sub section (4) of Section 53 of the Act.

Even otherwise also, since even in the petition impugned order dated 09.10.2018, is not an independent decision of either of the prescribed authorities provided under the Act and rather it was a memorandum by respondent no. 3 seeking directions for an action from the Director, i.e. respondent no. 2, which is not contemplated under the Act for taking an action either under sub section (5) of Section 53 of the Act or under Section 62 of the Act, as the case may be, no such order could have been passed by the Director for proceeding to take an action under Section 62 of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act of 2016.

Being specifically there being certain intention of legislature pertaining to the reason as to why the legislature has incorporated Section 62, under the Act and conferring the power to the independent Prescribed Authority, to be notified by the State, since it intended to apply only under certain contingencies, which may occur while continuance of an office by the member of the panchayat, the said provisions provided under Section 62 could not have been borrowed in the instant case for taking of an action against the petitioner, who had been rendered incapable to hold the office of the members of the panchayat under sub section (1) of Section 53 of the Act. Thus, this Court holds that the action initiated by virtue of the impugned order dated 09.10.2018 having being initiated by the Chief Development Officer vide his letter dated 22.09.2018, since not being a Prescribed Authority as defined under Section 53 of the Act, it would render the entire action to be vitiated right from its inception being without jurisdiction.

Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed, and the impugned order dated 09.10.2018 as passed by the Director contained in Annexure 1 of the writ petition is quashed.