Smt. Chandra Kala vs State of U.P. and Others

Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

No notice is being issued to private respondents in view of the order proposed to be passed today.

Petitioner was elected Gram Pradhan of village and post Bhauoopur, Block Jalalpur, tehsil Kerakat, district Jaunpur. No confidence motion against the petitioner was presented before the authority concerned by more than half of the members of the Gram Panchayat. On presentation of the No Confidence Motion, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jaunpur after satisfying himself with regard to the genuineness of the signatures on the No Confidence Motion issued a notice dated 11th November, 2008 fixing 3rd December, 2008 as the date for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat for consideration of the No Confidence Motion. Against the order so passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer dated 11th November, 2008, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 61265 of 2008. The writ petition was dismissed by the Hon''ble single Judge vide order dated 28th November, 2008. Not being satisfied with the order passed by the Hon''ble single Judge dated 28th November, 2008, petitioner preferred Special Appeal No. 1801 of 2008. Before the appeal could be taken up for consideration, it appears that a meeting for consideration of No Confidence Motion took place on 3rd December, 2008 and the motion is stated to have been passed by as many as 607 votes, out of total electoral college of 680. Accordingly the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jaunpur passed an order dated 8th December, 2008 removing the petitioner from the office of the Gram Pradhan. Petitioner therefore, made an amendment application in his pending Special Appeal No. 1801 of 2008 for challenging the motion of no-confidence as well as the order removing the petitioner from he office of the Gram Pradhan. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the special appeal vide order dated 18th December, 2008 permitting the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition challenging the motion of no confidence as well as the order removing the petitioner from the office of the Gram Pradhan. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner to question the convening of the meeting under notice dated 11th November, 2008. Petitioner is stated to have filed Writ Petition No. 1021 of 2009, which was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition on 7th April, 2009 (Reference paragraph 1 to the writ petition).

Petitioner has therefore, filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the notice of the meeting for consideration of No Confidence Motion dated 11th November, 2008, resolution passed on the No Confidence Motion dated 3rd December, 2008 as well as the order dated 8th December, 2008 removing the petitioner from the office of the Gram Pradhan.

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.

I have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.

For appreciating the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, it would be worthwhile to reproduce the complaint made by the petitioner dated 11th November, 2009, which reads as follows:

lsok esa]

Jh eku~ ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh] tkSuiqjA

fo"k;% foi{khx.k }kjk lkft''k ds rgr xzke iz/kku ds fo:) fn;s x;s vfo''okl izLrko dh oS/krk dh tkap gsrqA

egksn;]

lfou; fuosnu gS fd izkfFkZuh us xzke iapk;r xzke iz/kku in ij dk;e jgrs gq, bZekunkjh o fu"Bk ls xzzke ds lnL;ksa dh lsok dj jgh gS A xzke lHkk ds dqN ncax ,oa ddZl fdLe ds yksx ge xzke ds dqN vknfe;ks dsk cgyk Qqlykdj dqN ds tkyh gLrk{kj cukdj ;g ckr dgrs gq, fd xzke iz/kku ls gS.MiEi o tehu fnyk nsxs A bl rjg >wB o vlR; ds vk/kkj ij vfo''okl dh nj[okLr fn;s gS A tcfd ge izkfFkZuh ij xzke lHkk dh lEiw.kZ turk dk fo''okl gS bl izdj.k ij Jheku~ th ls vis{kk djrh gS fd foi{khx.k }kjk lkft''k ds rgr vfo''okl dh nj[okLr diksy dfYir dh oS/krk rFkk lR;rk dh tkap djkdj gh dksbZ dk;Zokgh djsa A rkfd U;k; gks ldsA

vr% Jheku~ th ls izkFkZuk gS fd lkft''k ds rkSj ij fn;k x;k vfo''okl izLrko gsrq fn;s x;s izkFkZuk i= ds lR;rk ,oa oS/krk dh tkap djkdj dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsaaA

izkfFkZuh g0 o eqgj pUnzdyk iz/kku xzke Hkkmiqj fo0[ka0- tykyiqj r0 dsjkdr ftyk tkSuiqjA fnukad 11-11-2008

From the bare reading of the complaint of the petitioner dated 11th November, 2008 it will be seen that the allegations made by the petitioner are vague and general in nature that the signatures of the persons appended to the No Confidence Motion were not of the members of the Gram Panchayat and were forged. Absolutely no particulars of any person, who is stated to have not signed the Motion of No-Confidence was furnished. Such vague and general allegations made in the complaint by the petitioner did not deserve any consideration by the District Panchayat Raj Officer. Moreover, it may be noticed that the District Panchayat Raj Officer had passed an order for convening the meeting for consideration of the No Confidence Motion on 11th November, 2008 and it is on the same day that the petitioner is alleged to have filed his objection. It is not the case of the petitioner that objections were before the dated 11th November, 2008 for convening the meeting on 3rd December, 2008 was issued. Even otherwise, from the resolution passed on 3rd December, 2008, it is apparently clear that Motion of No-Confidence, has been passed with nearly 607 in favour of motion as against total sanctioned electoral college of 680. This in itself is sufficient to establish that majority of members of the Gram Sabha have lost confidence in the petitioner. No other ground have been raised on behalf of the petitioner for questioning the resolution passed.

Consequently the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.