Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1876 (ALL)

CHANDRA KALA v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-04-30

ARUN TANDON

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. No notice is being issued to private respondents in view of the order proposed to be passed today. 3. Petitioner was elected Gram Pradhan of village & 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 the 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. 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). 4. 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. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehementally 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 33-B(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. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 7. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 7. 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 : Þlsok esa] Jheku ftyk iapk;r jkt vf/kdkjh] tkSuiqjA fo"k; % foi{khx.k }kjk lkftk ds rgr xzke Á/kku ds fo:) fn;s x;s vfookl ÁLrko dh oS/krk dh tkap gsrqA egksn;] lfou; fuosnu gS fd ÁkfFkZuh us xzke iapk;r xzke Á/kku in ij dk;e jgrs gq, bZekunkjh o fu"Bk ls xzke ds lnL;ksa dh lsok dj jgh gSaA xzke lHkk ds dqN ncax ,oa ldZl fdLe ds yksx ge xzke ds dqN vknfe;ksa dks cgyk Qqlykdj dqN ds tkyh gLrk{kj cukdj ds ;g ckr dgrs gq, fd xzke Á/kku ls gS.MiEi o tehu fnyk nsaxsA bl rjg >wB ,oa vlR; ds vk/kkj ij vfookl dh nj[okLr fn;s gSaA tcfd ge ÁkfFkZuh ij xzke lHkk dh lEiw.kZ turk dk fookl gS bl Ádj.k ij Jheku th vis{kk djrh gS fd foi{khx.k }kjk lkftk ds rgr vfookl dh nj[kkLr diksy dfYir dh oS/krk ,oa lR;rk dh tkap djkdj gh dksbZ dk;Zokgh djsa rkfd U;k; gks ldsA vr% Jheku~ th ls ÁkFkZuk gS fd lkftl ds rkSj ij fn;k x;k vfookl ÁLrko gsrq fn;s x;s ÁkFkZuk i= ds lR;rk ,oa oS/krk dh tkap djkdj dk;Zokgh djus dh Ñik djsaA ÁkfFkZuh g0 o eqgj pUnzdyk Á/kku xzke Hkkmiqj fo0[ka0 tykyiqj r0 dsjkdr ftyk tkSuiqjA fnukad 11-11-2008Þ 8. 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. 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 date 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. 9. Consequently, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ————