Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2932 (ALL)

VIMLA DEVI v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-12-03

TARUN AGARWALA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was elected as the Pradhan and was removed by a majority of two-third members of the Gram Sabha. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the no confidence motion, has filed the present writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the original notice of no confidence motion was not proper as the signatures of five members was not supported by an affidavit and that the signatures of the members of the Gram Sabha were not verified by the District Panchayat Raj Officer. The learned counsel further contended that 15 days previous notice was also not given as per Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 33-B of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and that the application was not moved by those five persons in person. In spite of these irregularities, which were fatal, the motion of no confidence was carried out on the date fixed and the petitioner was voted out the power by a majority of two-third members of the Gram Sabha. The learned counsel also contended that in the meeting for consideration of no confidence motion, the agenda was not discussed by the members of the Gram Sabha and that the provisions of Rule 37 of the Rules for holding a meeting of the Gram Sabha was also not carried out in accordance with the said provision and, therefore, the motion of no confidence was liable to be quashed since the procedure was not followed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is of the opinion that the validity and legality of the initial notice issued under Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 33-B of the Rules cannot be considered at this stage. The validity of the notice, genuineness of the signatures, signatures to be verified by the Prescribed Authority, personal presence of five members, who had filed the application are all relevant prior to the stage of holding of the no confidence motion, which should be challenged at that stage. But once the notice of no confidence is carried out, the legality or illegality of such notice becomes redundant and cannot be entertained. 4. But once the notice of no confidence is carried out, the legality or illegality of such notice becomes redundant and cannot be entertained. 4. The Pradhan holds an electorate office and he could be removed by the majority of two-third members of the Gram Sabha present and voting. The provision of no confidence motion, as reflected under Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 33-B of the Rules, is a method to ensure that an electorate representative continues to hold the office till such time he looses the confidence of the electorate. The extraordinary right to throw out the Pradhan is recognized under Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 33-B of the Rules. When the Pradhan is voted out the power, it reflects the will of the electorate, which is supreme in contradistinction of the notice signed by five persons and signed by more than 100 persons of the Gram Sabha. Such will of the electorate, which is reflected in the motion of no confidence is of prime importance and which is required to be adhered to and consequently, the objection on the validity of the notice, etc. cannot be considered at this stage i.e. after a motion of no confidence has been carried out. 5. The Court finds from a perusal of the impugned order that the agenda was discussed by the members of the Gram Sabha and thereafter the voting was carried out by a secret ballot. The provision of Rule 33-B (3) of the Rules was carried out in letter and spirit, as is clear from the impugned order. The provisions of Rule 37 of the Rules with regard to holding of a meeting of Gram Sabha is applicable but is not applicable for the no confidence motion since a specific provision is made for holding the meeting under Rule 33-B of the Rules. 6. In the instant case, the Court finds that out of 1415 votes, 579 members cast their votes, out of which 402 members voted against the petitioner, which is more than two-third of the members of the Gram Sabha. Such result, which reflects the power of the electorate, through whom the petitioner was initially elected, is required to be respected. For the reasons stated aforesaid, the Court does not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.