Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 1291 (ALL)

Abdul Sattar v. Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari

1996-11-08

S.P.SRIVASTAVA

body1996
Judgment : S. P. Srivastava, J.- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents. 2. PERUSED the record. Feeling aggrieved by an order dated 28.10.1996, passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Moradabad where under fixing 18.11.1996 as the date for the meeting of the Gram Panchayat for considering the motion of no confidence received by the said authority on 22.10.1996 under the presidentship of Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat who was directed to ensure that the notice of the date fixed for the meeting be served at least 15 days before the date fixed for the meeting to all the elected members, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the said notice. 3. FROM the assertions made in the writ petition, it is apparent that an application dated 6.9.1996 was submitted before the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Moradabad praying that imposing restraint on the financial powers of the Pradhan, the proceedings for consideration of the motion of no confidence against him be initiated. This application purports to bear the signatures of nine members of the Gram Panchayat out of a total number of eleven members of the Gram Panchayat whose names are disclosed in Annexure 5 to the writ petition. 4. IN the order dated 28.10.1996, the District Panchayat Raj Officer has observed that the aforesaid application was presented by three members of the Gram Panchayat to him personally on 22.10.1996. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that no notice as required under Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. 1947 for the purpose of consideration of the motion of no confidence has been given. It has been urged that the application of nine members of the Gram Panchayat itself is dated 6.9.1996 and the order for convening the meeting of the Gram Panchayat for the consideration of the motion of no confidence fixing 18.11.1996 for the purpose ; itself had been issued on 28.10.1996 and it is the date 6.9.96 which has to be taken as the date furnishing the starting point for computing the period of thirty days as contemplated under Rule 33B of the rules framed under the Act as amended which period had expired much before 28.10.1996 on which dated the order had been passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer. As such, it is contended that the said order and the proceedings consequent thereupon are clearly without Jurisdiction. 5. THE aforesaid submission is clearly misconceived and baseless. It may be noticed in this connection, that the provisions contained in Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act require that the meeting specially convened for the purpose of considering the motion of no confidence against the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat should be a meeting specially convened for the purpose and of which at least 15 days previous notice shall be given. THE notice referred to in Rule 33B as amended is the information to the concerned authority in regard to the proposal for moving a motion of no confidence for the removal of the Pradhan and raising a demand in this regard. This notice has to be signed by atleast half of the members of the Gram Panchayat and should also state the reasons on which the proposal for no confidence is based and that notice must be presented by three members of the Gram Panchayat personally to the District Panchayat Raj Officer. 6. THE District Panchayat Raj Officer before initiating further proceedings on the notice containing the proposal has to apply his mind and satisfy himself relating to the convening of a meeting for the consideration of the motion of no confidence against the Pradhan about the genuineness of the demand raised in this regard. It is thereafter that the District Panchayat Raj Officer has to issue a notice which is referred to in Section 14 of the Act. In the present case, the notice has been tendered on 22.10.1996 and the order for issuing the notice after being satisfied about the genuineness of the demand for specially convening the meeting for considering the motion of no confidence against the Pradhan was passed on 28.10.1996. The said order clearly ensured that at least 15 days period elapsed between the service of the notice and the date fixed for holding the meeting which date was 18.11.1996. The application dated 6.9.1996 signed by nine members of the Gram Panchayat has to be treated as the notice in regard to the proposal of removal of the Pradhan and for the consideration of the motion of no confidence in a specially convened meeting. 7. The application dated 6.9.1996 signed by nine members of the Gram Panchayat has to be treated as the notice in regard to the proposal of removal of the Pradhan and for the consideration of the motion of no confidence in a specially convened meeting. 7. THE date 6.9.1996, therefore, could not furnish the starting point for computing the period of 30 days as urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as it is the date on which the notice is tendered personally by three of the members which is the only relevant date which has to be taken as the date furnishing the starting point for computing the period of 30 days in question. In the present case, this date was 22.10.1996. It may further be noticed that in his order dated 28.10.1996, the District Panchayat Raj Officer had clearly directed the Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat to ensure that the notice of the meeting fixed for 18.11.96 is served at least 15 days before that date. There is no assertion that the Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat did not comply with the requirement as indicated in the order dated 28.10.1996. 8. IT has further been urged that the application dated 6.9.1996 could neither be treated as a notice as contemplated by the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 or the Rules framed thereunder nor had been presented by the three of the signatories of the so-called notice. IT has further been urged that Sri Kripal Singh, Sri Ram Swarup, Sri Balwant Singh and Smt. Rameshwari who are four signatories out of nine persons who are supposed to have signed the notice could not be deemed to be the members of the Gram Panchayat as they stood disqualified for being so treated as provided for under Section 5A of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 in as much as they were in arrears of tax and had not paid the tax imposed on them. This assertion is based on the perusal of the record and the record which has been relied upon is the document, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition which is only an extract from the tax list indicating the proposed taxes. This assertion is based on the perusal of the record and the record which has been relied upon is the document, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition which is only an extract from the tax list indicating the proposed taxes. This document does not in any manner indicate that the aforesaid members had not paid the tax as claimed or there were any arrears against them in that regard. The notice contemplated under the provisions of Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act and Rule 33B of the Rules framed thereunder, it seems to me, means and refers to the proposal or intention of the members of the Gram Panchayat for the removal of the Pradhan and it does not mean anything more. The notice referred to hereinabove as contemplated under Rule 33B is required to be signed atleast by half of the members of the Gram Panchayat and that is for the purpose of ensuring that there is a genuine demand of a considerable number of the members of the Gram Panchayat for the removal of the Pradhan so that the convening of the meeting may not be futile. The signing of this notice is merely a precautionary measure for preventing waste of time and energy. It further seems to me that the satisfaction referred to in Rule 33B of the Rules framed under the Panchayat Raj Act is prima facie satisfaction of the concerned authority about the genuineness of the demand. If the motion is carried out it would be anomalous to quash the proceedings of the meeting and the resolution passed for the removal simply on the ground that the motion was not signed by at least half of the members as the very fact that it is carried out indicates and has to be taken as confirming that there was in fact intention in the minds of at least half of the members of the Gram Panchayat to remove the Pradhan. 9. IT seems to me that it is not the personal whim, wish or view or opinion or the ip-se-dixit dehors the material brought before the concerned authority but a legitimate inference drawn from the material placed before such authority which is relevant for arriving at the satisfaction contemplated under Rule 33B framed under the Act. 9. IT seems to me that it is not the personal whim, wish or view or opinion or the ip-se-dixit dehors the material brought before the concerned authority but a legitimate inference drawn from the material placed before such authority which is relevant for arriving at the satisfaction contemplated under Rule 33B framed under the Act. The sufficiency or otherwise of the material cannot be questioned. The legitimacy of the inference drawn from such material is, however, certainly open for Judicial review. But where the satisfaction is only a prima facie satisfaction contemplated only as precautionary measure and is not envisaged to jeopardise or affect any vested right of an office bearer even of an elective office, in the sense that the ultimate effect is left dependent on the "will" of the majority of 2/3rd members of the elected representatives in a meeting specially convened for consideration of not only the genuineness of the intention indicated in the notice but also the reasons mentioned therein in support of such an intention, there can be no justifiable ground for interfering in the exercise of the prima facie, satisfaction in the present proceedings of an extraordinary nature. I must, however, hasten to add that whenever a statutory provision requires arriving at a satisfaction before passing an order which directly affects an individual to his detriment depriving him of the benefits of a vested right in such a case the legitimacy of the inference drawn from the materials produced before the concerned authority is certainly open for judicial review in the proceedings of the present nature but not otherwise. 10. IT must be remembered in this connection that foundation of democracy is faith in the capacities of human nature ; faith in human intelligence and in the power of pooled and co-operative experience. The interest of the Gram Panchayat is paramount to individual interest of a person to cling to the elective office of Pradhan and the two interests must be brought into just and harmonious relation. The interest of the Gram Panchayat is paramount to individual interest of a person to cling to the elective office of Pradhan and the two interests must be brought into just and harmonious relation. The provisions contained in Section 14 of the Act secure a right in the representatives of the electorate to get the Pradhan removed from his post by voting him out by two third majority of its elected representatives in a meeting convened for the purpose after bringing to the notice of the Pradhan concerned the reasons for such an action which if approved of by such majority results in the removal of the Pradhan after giving him an opportunity to convince and persuade the members of the Gram Panchayat in the meeting to desist from carrying out the resolution regarding removal. 11. CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances brought on record, the application dated 6.9.1996 referred to hereinabove satisfied all the requirements stipulated in Rule 33B of the Rules framed under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act as amended and could without any impediment be treated as information in regard to the consideration of the motion of no confidence for the removal of the Pradhan. The concerned authority appears to have proceeded on his being satisfied about the requirements contemplated under Rule 33B of the Rules framed under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act as amended having been complied with. 12. TAKING into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on record and the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Premwati v. State of U. P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34814 of 1996, decided on 5.11.1996, no justifiable ground has been made out for any interference by this Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.