Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 260 (UTT)

SHIV RAJ SINGH PAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-05-22

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral). Present petition is filed assailing the show cause notice dated 16.04.2015, issued by the District Magistrate, Dehradun under Section 95 (1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 calling the explanation from the petitioner within 15 days, failing which appropriate action shall be taken against the petitioner under Section 95 (1) (g) of the Act. 2. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that since only question of law is involved in the present petition, therefore, same may be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Further contended that since, respondent no. 5 is a proforma respondent, on whose complaint notice was issued by the District Magistrate, therefore, he need not be served. 3. Undisputedly, the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of Gram Sabha, Kotarha Santaur, Block Sahaspur, District Dehradun; term of the elected Gram Sabha came to a end in the year 2013 and on the expiry of the term of the Gram Sabha, the petitioner demitted the Office of Gram Pradhan on 30.09.2013; after 01.10.2013, petitioner is not a Gram Pradhan and now Mr. Ravindra Singh is the elected Gram Pradhan. 4. Section 95 (1) (g) reads as under:- “95. Inspection. (1) The State Government may – (a) ….. (b) …. (c) ….. (d) ….. (e) ….. (f) ….. (g) [Remove a Pradhan, or member of a gram Panchayat] or a Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat if he – (i) absents himself without sufficient cause for more than three consecutive meetings or sittings, (ii) refuses to Act or becomes incapable of acting for any reason whatsoever or if he is accused of or charged for an offence involving moral turpitude, (iii) has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by the Act or rules made thereunder or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest, or [iii-a] has taken the benefit of reservation under sub-section (2) of Section 11-A or sub-section (5) of Section 12, as the case may be, on the basis of a false declaration subscribed by him stating that he is member of the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or the Backward Classes, as the case may be]. (iv) being a Sahayak Sarpanch or a Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat takes active part in politics, or (v) suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in clauses (a) to (m) of Section 5-A.” 5. Perusal of Clause (g) of sub Section (1) of Section 95 would demonstrate that Pradhan or member of a gram Panchayat or a Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat may be removed if he absents himself without sufficient cause for more than three consecutive meetings or sittings; or refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting for any reason whatsoever; or if he is accused of or charged for an offence involving moral turpitude; or has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by the Act or rules made thereunder; or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest. 6. Since petitioner has already demitted the Office of the Gram Pradhan way-back in the year 2013 and today he is not a Gram Pradhan, therefore, there is no question of removal of the petitioner from the post of Gram Pradhan. Consequently, on the face of it, impugned notice is absolutely outcome of the non-application of mind and moreover, it is without jurisdiction and, therefore, it does not stand in the scrutiny of law. 7. In the result, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned notice is hereby quashed. 8. CLMA No. 5746 of 2015 also stands disposed of accordingly.