Mangu Lal vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajiv Sharma, J.—On 8th February, 2008, this Court while issuing notice directed learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions or produce the record on 15th February, 2008. When the case was taken-up today, learned Standing Counsel submits that despite a letter has been sent to the authority concerned, neither any official has contacted nor instructions have been received and as such, he prays for some more time to obtain instructions. The Court was inclined to give further opportunity to the learned Standing Counsel for producing the relevant record, to which learned Counsel for the petitioner objected and submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of today itself and in case the same is not disposed of, it will become infructuous as 16.2.2008 has been fixed for carrying out ''no-confidence motion'' against the petitioner and appointing Mr. Ram Manohar Shukla as Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat) as Election Officer.

The only contention argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the District Panchayat Raj Officer has not verified the genuineness of the signatures of the members of the Society as required under Rule 33-B of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner relevant Rule 33-B (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Sixteenth Amendment) Rules, 2005 is reproduced as under:

33-B(1) A written notice of the intention to move a motion for removal of the Pradhan u/s 14 of the Act shall be necessary. It shall be signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Gram Sabha and shall state the reasons for moving the motion and it shall be delivered in person by atleast five members signing the notice to the District Panchayat Raj Officer. It shall also be necessary to certify the signatures of the other members signing the notice by all five members presenting the notice by furnishing their affidavit to this effect. Before proceeding further on the notice the District Panchayat Raj Officer shall satisfy himself regarding genuineness of the signatures of the members signing the notice.

On perusal of the aforesaid Rule 33 B(1), it is evident that for removal of Pradhan under the Act, there should be written notice of the intention of moving the motion, it is to be signed by not less than half of the total members of the Gaon Sabha and in the said notice, the reasons for moving the motion should be enumerated and the notice is to be delivered by atleast five members signing the notice to the District Panchayat Raj Officer. It is further evident that five members presenting the notice must certify the signatures of other members by furnishing an affidavit to that effect. On taking cognizance of the said notice, the District Panchayat Raj officer shall satisfy himself regarding the genuineness of the signatures of the members signing the notice. The genuineness of the signatures by the District Panchayat Raj Officer is of all the five members presenting the notice and on the basis of the affidavit sworn by five members who have presented the notice, the signature of other members is to be verified by the five members who are presenting the motion by means of an affidavit. But the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition may be decided today itself, which, in my opinion, cannot be decided in the absence of records or the affidavits.

As the Court was inclined to grant some time to produce the relevant record to which the petitioner''s counsel objected and submitted that in case, ''''no-confidence motion'' is carried out on 16.2.2008, the writ petition will become infructuous and as such, he did not want to pursue the matter any further.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.