CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Dhyan Singh vs District Panersayat Raj Officer and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 7 January 1998 · Citation: (1998) 01 AHC CK 0062

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.R.Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 — Section 14
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 33492 of 1997
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 222 words

S. R. Singh, J.—Heard Sri N. C. Rajvanshi learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing Counsel for the State authorities and Sri S. A. Shah for the 4th respondent.

2.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed in view of my judgment of date in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40873 of 1997, Smi. Meera Devi v. State of U.P. and others. The petitioner was admittedly not allowed to cast Ms vote, as would be evident from the order dated 23997, a copy of which has been annexed ''as Annexure4 to the writ petition.

Minutes of noconfidence meeting (Annexure6 to the writ petition) show that nine votes were polled in favour of the motion and four against the motion. Had the petitioner been allowed to cast his vote, the motion would have failed for want of two thirds majority as stipulated by Section 14of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.

3.

Accordingly following the decision in Meera Devi''s case (supra), I allow the instant petition and quash the proceedings of noconfidence held in the meeting dated 25997 contained in Annexure6 to the writ petition. The petitioner shall be restored to the office of the Pradhan and he shall be allowed to continue until removed from the office in accordance with law.