Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 485 (UTT)

Rakiba v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-09-06

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner before this Court is an elected “Gram Pradhan” of Village Dariyapur, Dayalpur Block, Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. She is aggrieved by the order dated 26.08.2017, passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, (from hereinafter referred to as the “DPRO”), District Haridwar. The DPRO on an application moved before him for bringing a no-confidence motion against the petitioner, signed by more than 1/4th of the members of the “Gram Sabha”, has called for a meeting to discuss this no-confidence motion against the petitioner, vide his order dated 26.08.2017. The meeting is scheduled to take place on 10.09.2017, at 8.00 A.M. at Primary School, Dariyapur, Dayalpur, Block Bhagwanpur. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of DPRO as well as the entire procedure adopted against her on grounds that this is in violation of Section 18 of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). According to the petitioner, the provision has not been complied with inasmuch as though it was mandatory for the DPRO to have first reached a satisfaction that the application for no-confidence motion bears “genuine signatures” of not less than 1/4th of the members, which has not been done. The requirement under Section 18 of the Act is that an application or notice for bringing a no confidence motion against an elected Gram Pradhan must bear signatures of at least 1/4th of the total members of the Gram Sabha and that such a notice must be personally presented by at least five members of Gram Sabha before the DPRO. According to the petitioner, the total number of members in the Gram Sabha are 1781, and hence, 1/4th of this would be 445. Though in the notice, there are 484 members, but 14 members had not even put their signatures on the application for the no-confidence motion, hence actual number was only 470. It is a notice by 470 members. Petitioner further contends that out of the remaining 470 members, 50 members subsequently gave an affidavit that they have not signed such a proposal or notice, therefore, the actual number of members who proposed for a no-confidence motion is further reduced to 420. It is a notice by 470 members. Petitioner further contends that out of the remaining 470 members, 50 members subsequently gave an affidavit that they have not signed such a proposal or notice, therefore, the actual number of members who proposed for a no-confidence motion is further reduced to 420. The order was passed by the DPRO for bringing a no-confidence motion on 26.08.2017, but on 25.08.2017 itself, i.e. a day prior to the date of notice, these 50 members of the “Gram Sabha” had given a signed memorandum to the DPRO stating that they have not signed the original application or in case the application bears their signatures, the same have been obtained without their knowledge, and they do not want to press the no-confidence motion, hence the order dated 26.08.2017 is illegal, as there was no notice of 1/4th of the members. 3. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner Sri Kishore Kumar that once the DPRO was apprised by the 50 members of the Gram Sabha of their intention, he should have refrained from proceeding with the matter, as 50 names were liable to be removed from the list and once the names of these 50 members are removed from the list, it is hence an application (or notice), which has been signed only by 420 members which is short by 25 members as the minimum requirement (of 1/4th of Gram Sabha), would be of 445 members. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, the DPRO is not merely a postman but he has to apply his mind and has to examine the veracity of the application and the genuineness of signatures, since in the Hindi version of the Act, the word used are “sarsari* Parikshan**” (Hindi), which means that the DPRO should have enquired as to the genuineness of the signatures, before proceeding any further in the matter. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4, who is also one of the five members who submitted a notice to DPRO under Section 18 of the Act, would, however, argue that this Court in an earlier decision in a similar controversy, i.e. in the case of Jyotiram and others Vs. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4, who is also one of the five members who submitted a notice to DPRO under Section 18 of the Act, would, however, argue that this Court in an earlier decision in a similar controversy, i.e. in the case of Jyotiram and others Vs. District Magistrate, Haridwar and others, passed in WPMS No. 1057 of 2017 vide order dated 13.07.2017 has held that the powers given to the DPRO under Section 18 of the Act do not require for any kind of “inquiry” or “investigation” in the matter and the words used under sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act are that “the examination has to be done in a cursory manner”. The actual word used in Hindi is “Sarsari”. The official English translation of the text, the word “formal” has been used. 5. The alternate arguments of the petitioner would also be that though the State of Uttarakhand has enacted its own law for the purposes known as Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 and U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 stands repealed so far its applicability in the State of Uttarakhand is concerned, yet since in the repealing provision there is again a saving clause, which would save the Rules made under the Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, such as, the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 framed under the Act, where detail procedure has been laid down for the * ljljh ** ijh{k.k removal of Gram Pradhan, such as what is missing under the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 and hence the procedure which has to be followed for the removal of Pradhan it would be the one laid down under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947, which continues to operate. 6. Before this Court comes down to the main issue of the legality of the procedure adopted for the removal of Gram Pradhan, there are two issues which must be first settled. These are firstly the determinations as to the valid procedure liable to be adopted in such proceedings and second is as to whether the original text in “Hindi” would be the authoritative text or its translation in English, in case of discrepancy between the two versions. THE PROCEDURE TO BE ADOPTED UNDER THE LAW FOR REMOVAL OF GRAM PRADHAN. 7. These are firstly the determinations as to the valid procedure liable to be adopted in such proceedings and second is as to whether the original text in “Hindi” would be the authoritative text or its translation in English, in case of discrepancy between the two versions. THE PROCEDURE TO BE ADOPTED UNDER THE LAW FOR REMOVAL OF GRAM PRADHAN. 7. The question here is as to which procedure is liable to be adopted under law for removal of “Gram Pradhan”, whether it would the Rules i.e. U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 or the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016? 8. I have not even an iota of doubt here that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner for insistence on the U.P. Rules of 1947 are totally misplaced. The new State of Uttarakhand was created by an Act of Parliament, namely, the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000. Section 86, 87 and 88 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act read together speak of continuation of law, which were applicable in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh, in the new State of Uttarakhand as well. Under the said provisions, the Acts which were applicable in the undivided State of Uttar Pradesh continue to operate in the State of Uttarakhand and would continue to operate till the State of Uttarakhand chooses to amend or to frame its own law for the purposes. In the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh and for the considerable period even in the State of Uttarakhand after its creation, the law which was in operation for the election and removal of “Gram Pradhan” was the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and the Rules framed therein, namely, U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules. Under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, the State has got powers to frame rules under Section 110 of the Act and in exercise of these powers, the State of Uttar Pradesh has framed detailed Rules for various procedures under the Act, known as the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules. Section 33-B of the Uttar Pradesh Raj Rules, relates to the procedure adopted for removal of “Gram Pradhan”, which reads as under: “33-B. Procedure for removal of Pradhan.- (1) A written notice of the intention to move a motion for removal of the Pradhan under Section 14 of the Act shall be necessary. Section 33-B of the Uttar Pradesh Raj Rules, relates to the procedure adopted for removal of “Gram Pradhan”, which reads as under: “33-B. Procedure for removal of Pradhan.- (1) A written notice of the intention to move a motion for removal of the Pradhan under Section 14 of the Act shall be necessary. It shall be signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Gram Sabha and shall state the reasons for moving the motion and it shall be delivered in persons by at least five members signing the notice to the District Panchayat Raj Officer. It shall also be necessary to certify the signatures of the other members signing the notice by all five members presenting the notice by furnishing their affidavit to this effect. Before proceeding further on the notice the District Panchayat Raj Officer shall satisfy himself regarding genuineness of signatures of the members signing the notice. (2) The District Panchayat Raj Officer shall convene a meeting of the Gram Sabha, under provisions of Section 14 of the Act, on a date and time of commencement of meeting to be fixed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice. The meeting shall be presided over by the District Panchayat Raj Officer or by the person authorised by him in writing in this behalf. If any other person is authorised to preside the meeting, he shall be supplied a copy of the electoral rolls of the Gram Sabha and all other papers relating to the motion by the District Panchayat Raj Officer. The Presiding Officer may take such clerical assistance for conducting the proceedings of the meeting for the consideration of the motion as he may deem necessary. (3) The Presiding Officer shall read in the meeting, the notice received by him. He shall then allow the motion to be moved and discussed. The Presiding Officer shall not speak on the merit of the motion. Such discussion shall terminate on the expiry of two hours appointed for the commencement of the meeting unless it is concluded earlier. Then the motion shall be put to vote according to provisions of Rules 33-D.” (emphasis provided) 9. The Presiding Officer shall not speak on the merit of the motion. Such discussion shall terminate on the expiry of two hours appointed for the commencement of the meeting unless it is concluded earlier. Then the motion shall be put to vote according to provisions of Rules 33-D.” (emphasis provided) 9. Under the above provision, once a notice for No Confidence Motion is brought before the DPRO by the members of the “Gram Sabha”, the DPRO has to “satisfy himself regarding the genuineness of signatures”. He has been mandated under the law to do that! He cannot proceed any further or to call for a meeting to discuss the No Confidence Motion unless he has reached a satisfaction that the signatures on the notice are genuine and bona fide. 10. The aforesaid provision continued to operate in the State of Uttarakhand as well till the State of Uttarakhand enacted its own Act, namely, the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016 which was brought into effect by notification in the Official Gazette on 07.04.2016. Section 194 of the Act of 2016 repeals the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, as far as its application in the State of Uttarakhand is concerned. It reads as under: “194. Repeal. – (1) The Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 (as applicable of Uttarakhand State) is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the said enactment shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.” 11. Sub-Section (2) of Section 194 though is a saving clause, nevertheless, in the said provisions, the Rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 are not saved for the reason that whereas in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, there was no detail procedure given for bringing No Confidence Motion against a “Gram Pradhan” or the procedure to be adopted for its removal, this procedure is laid down in the Act itself i.e. Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016. 12. Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act reads as under: “14. Removal of Pradhan.- (1) The Gram Sabha may at a meeting specially convened for the purpose and of which at least 15 days previous notice shall be given, remove the Pradhan by a majority of two-thirds of the members of the Gram Sabha present and voting. 12. Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act reads as under: “14. Removal of Pradhan.- (1) The Gram Sabha may at a meeting specially convened for the purpose and of which at least 15 days previous notice shall be given, remove the Pradhan by a majority of two-thirds of the members of the Gram Sabha present and voting. (1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 11, one-third of the members of the Gram Sabha shall form the quorum for a meeting under sub-section (1). (2) A meeting for the removal of a Pradhan shall not be convened within two years of his election. (3) If the motion is not taken up for want of quorum or fails for lack of requisite majority at the meeting, no subsequent meeting for the removal of the same Pradhan shall be convened within one year of the date of the previous meeting. (4) Subject to the provisions of this section, the procedure for the removal of a Pradhan including that to be followed at such meeting, shall be such as may be prescribed.” (emphasis provided) 13. Under the above provision, a detail procedure has been laid down, which was not there in the Act. On the other hand in Uttarakhand, the law makers in their wisdom have given the entire procedure in the Act itself. The procedure is given under Section 18 of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act for removal of a “Gram Pradhan”, and therefore, there is no question of the applicability of the 1947 Rules in Uttarakhand. 14. Moreover, even Section 24 of the General Clauses Act would not make Rule 33-B operative for the removal of “Gram Pradhan” for simple reason that it would be totally inconsistent with the procedure as laid down in the new Act. 15. Section 24 of the General Clauses Act reads as under: “24. Continuation of appointments, notifications, orders, etc. 14. Moreover, even Section 24 of the General Clauses Act would not make Rule 33-B operative for the removal of “Gram Pradhan” for simple reason that it would be totally inconsistent with the procedure as laid down in the new Act. 15. Section 24 of the General Clauses Act reads as under: “24. Continuation of appointments, notifications, orders, etc. issued under enactments repealed and re-enacted.- Where any enactment is repealed and re-enacted by an Uttar Pradesh Act, with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, or statutory instrument or form made or issued under the repealed enactment shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, or statutory instrument or form made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted.” (emphasis provided) 16. The language of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act is absolutely clear. A Rule can only be said to have been saved and would be applicable only so far as it is not inconsistent with the provision enacted. Therefore in any case as we have seen, the procedure as given under the U.P. Panchayat Rules and the one of Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act are entirely different. Whereas the DPRO under the Rules has to examine the genuineness of the signature, in the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, there is no such mandate for the DPRO. Hence, it is absolutely clear that the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules will have no application for our present purposes, and the procedure to be followed is what has been laid down under Section 18 of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016. IN CASE OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN ORIGINAL HINDI TEXT AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION, WHICH VERSION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS AUTHORITATIVE TEXT FOR INTERPRETATION BY THE COURT. 17. The second issue is whether in case of a discrepancy between the original text in Hindi and its English translation, which version would prevail? In other words, what would be the authoritative text for interpretation by the Court, English or Hindi? 18. This aspect requires an appraisal and interpretation of Article 348 of the Constitution of India. 17. The second issue is whether in case of a discrepancy between the original text in Hindi and its English translation, which version would prevail? In other words, what would be the authoritative text for interpretation by the Court, English or Hindi? 18. This aspect requires an appraisal and interpretation of Article 348 of the Constitution of India. The Article primarily states that the language of the Supreme Court and the High Courts shall be English and also all Bills to be introduced or amendments thereto to be moved in either House of Parliament or before the Legislature of a State and all Acts passed by Parliament or the Legislature of the State and all Ordinances promulgated by the President or the Governor of a State and all Orders, Rules, Regulations, Bye-laws issued under the Constitution of India or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of a State shall be in English language. Clause (3) of Article 348 carves out an exception and states that in case where the Legislature of a particular State has prescribed any language other than the English language for use in Bills introduced in, or Acts passed by, the Legislature of the State or, in Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of the State or in any order, Rule, Regulation or Bye-law made by the State in its regional language (which is Hindi in the present case), a translation of the same in English language published under the Authority of the Governor of the State in the official Gazette of that State shall be deemed to be “the authoritative text thereof in the English language under this Article.” 19. Under clause (1) of Article 348, all authoritative text of all Bills, amendments and all Acts passed by Parliament and the Ordinances made by the President have to be in English. Clause (1) of Article 348 provides that this is a situation, which will remain “until Parliament by law otherwise provides”. 20. Subsequently, the Parliament passed an Act known as Official Languages Act, 1963 and Section 5 of the Official Languages Act reads as under:- “5. Clause (1) of Article 348 provides that this is a situation, which will remain “until Parliament by law otherwise provides”. 20. Subsequently, the Parliament passed an Act known as Official Languages Act, 1963 and Section 5 of the Official Languages Act reads as under:- “5. Authorised Hindi translation of Central Acts, etc.- (1) A translation in Hindi published under the authority of the President in the Official Gazette on and after the appointed day- (a) of any Central Act or any Ordinance promulgated by the President, or (b) of any order, rule, regulation or bye-law issued under the Constitution or under any Central Act, (2) As from the appointed day, the authoritative text in the English language of all Bills to be introduced or amendments thereto to be moved in either House of Parliament shall be accompanied by a translation of the same in Hindi authorised in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act.” 21. Therefore, as far as legislations made by Parliament are concerned, the authoritative text remains the English text as i.e. the one that has been passed by the Legislature, though it has to be accompanied by translation in Hindi, which “shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in Hindi”. The situation reverses in a State, where the official language of the State is not English but a regional language, which in the present case is Hindi. For records, it must be stated that the official language of the State of Uttarakhand is Hindi. Admittedly, all Acts which are to be passed by the State Legislature are passed in Hindi. It is the Hindi text, which is circulated to all Members of the State Legislature, who thereupon after discussion pass the Bill. Hence, at its very inception in the State of Uttarakhand, the text which has been circulated to the Members of the Legislature is in Hindi language. It is in Hindi that the Members of the State Legislature have read the Act, have applied their mind and have then given their consent and approval to the Bill, which subsequently become an Act. It is in Hindi that the Members of the State Legislature have read the Act, have applied their mind and have then given their consent and approval to the Bill, which subsequently become an Act. It is again true that this text in Hindi has to be translated in English as that is the mandate of the Constitution of India under Clause (3) of Article 348 and once it is done it “shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the English language under this Article”. 22. We see a broad similarity between the language used in clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India and Section 5 of the Official Languages Act, 1963. A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohammad Biri Works, Meerganj, Allahabad and others v. The Sales-tax Officer, Allahabad reported in AIR 1959 Allahabad 208 (V 46 C 51) while noticing the discrepancy between the original text, which was in Hindi and its English translation, came to the conclusion that it is the original text i.e. Hindi has to be relied upon. The Division Bench held as follows :- “The English version of the Act, on the basis of which arguments were advanced before us, in this State has merely the status of an authoritative text in the English language of the original Act. The original Act is in Hindi and wherever there be any doubt and, in fact, principally for purposes of properly interpreting any provision of such an enactment, the proper course is to look at the original Act as published in Hindi.” 23. Undoubtedly, Hindi is the language of the State of Uttarakhand. All Bills, which are moved in the Legislative Assembly of the State and all Acts passed by the Legislative Assembly are in official language of the State i.e. Hindi though under the mandate of Article 348 of the Constitution of India, the authoritative English translation has to be done by the State Government. 24. All Bills, which are moved in the Legislative Assembly of the State and all Acts passed by the Legislative Assembly are in official language of the State i.e. Hindi though under the mandate of Article 348 of the Constitution of India, the authoritative English translation has to be done by the State Government. 24. A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court later in the case of Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (III), U.P., Allahabad and others reported in AIR 1962 Allahabad 240 (V 49 C 67) has held that though both the English version of an Act or a Bill, which are published in official gazette are authorized versions, but in case of a conflict between the two versions, the English version will prevail. 25. Subsequently, the above view was reiterated by a Full Bench of five Judges of Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Ram Rati and others v. Gram Samaj, Jehwa and others reported in AIR 1974 Allahabad 106 (V 61 C 24) where while noticing a discrepancy between two versions i.e. of Hindi and English in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1954, it came to the conclusion that in case there is a divergence between the two versions i.e. Hindi and English, by virtue of Article 348 of the Constitution of India, it is the English version which will prevail. 26. All the same, the Hon’ble Apex Court seems to have followed (though not explicitly) the initial Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in this matter, (i.e. AIR 1959, Allahabad 208 (V 46 C 51). While noticing a discrepancy between Hindi and English version of a Statute, in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh v. Associated Distributors Limited reported in (2008) 7 SCC 409 , the Hon’ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that since the matter relates to a State Law passed in the State of Uttar Pradesh and considering that the language in the State of Uttar Pradesh is Hindi, in case of a difference between what is stated in the Hindi version and its English translation, it is the Hindi version, which should prevail, as Hindi is the language of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “It is pertinent to mention here that the official language of the State of Uttar Pradesh is Hindi. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “It is pertinent to mention here that the official language of the State of Uttar Pradesh is Hindi. If any difference is found between the notification in English and Hindi, the notification issued in Hindi will be applicable.” 27. The difference between an Act passed by the Parliament and an Act passed by the State Legislature (in this case by the Legislative Assembly of Uttarakhand) would be that whereas the original Act of Parliament is in English, accompanied by its authoritative translation in Hindi, in the case of an Act passed by the State Legislature (i.e. Legislative Assembly of Uttarakhand in the present case), the original text which was passed by the State Legislature is in Hindi, which should be translated in English. The word used in clause (3) of Article 348 makes the English translation as an authoritative text, but only in the English language under this Article i.e. Article 348. Even assuming that it is the English translation of the Statute which is the authoritative text, it cannot be said that the original Hindi text is not an authoritative text. In fact both are authoritative texts i.e. both Hindi as well as the English texts. Normally, the translation is a correct translation of the Hindi Text, but at times it may not precisely translate a particular word or phrase properly in English as was intended, and in that case the actual intention has to be derived from the words used in the original text, which in the present is Hindi. 28. There is absolutely no confusion as to which text would prevail. In case of a Parliamentary Legislation, the authoritative text would always be the English text and in case of any doubt or discrepancy between the original text i.e. in English or the Hindi translation, it is the English text which has to be relied upon. Similarly, since the situation reverses in the State Legislature, it would be the Hindi text which would be relied upon in case of discrepancy, though the Courts can always take aid of the English language in order to come to a proper conclusion, wherever there is a doubt. Similarly, since the situation reverses in the State Legislature, it would be the Hindi text which would be relied upon in case of discrepancy, though the Courts can always take aid of the English language in order to come to a proper conclusion, wherever there is a doubt. We cannot loose sight of something as fundamental as the fact that after all the Legislatures of the State who have actually discussed, applied their mind and passed the Bill have done it while examining only the Hindi text! It is the Hindi text that they have passed. 29. In the present case, the discrepancy in any case between Hindi and English version is not of a nature, which may call for our leaning towards one form of the text as against the other. This is because in the present case, the discrepancy in the word used in the Hindi text and its translation (in English) is extremely minor. In English version, the words used are that the DPRO on receipt of notice of no-confidence motion against the Gram Pradhan, after “formal examination” of such notice shall convene a meeting. In the original Hindi text instead of word “formal”, the word “sarsari” is written. As per Oxford Hindi to English Dictionary, the exact meaning of the word “sarsari” is “cursory”, though in English translation, the word which has been used is “formal”. But here the intention is absolutely clear as per the Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, the meaning of “formal” is “relating to outward form as distinct from content” and the meaning of “formal” as per the Advanced Law Lexicon is as under: “Of the outward form, shape or appearance, not the matter or substance of a thing.” 30. The context in which the word “formal” is used shows that what was intended was that the notice has to be examined in a cursory manner i.e. as a matter or routine, and no detail investigation or enquiry is required. Therefore the much emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Kishore Kumar on the word “examination” which comes after the word “formal” are of little relevance. Therefore the much emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Kishore Kumar on the word “examination” which comes after the word “formal” are of little relevance. Whichever way, therefore, we look at it, the idea is that once the DPRO receives the application for no confidence motion, all he has to do is to just formally look at the notice to see whether there are signatures of actual members or not and thereafter proceed with the matter. 31. This Court in the case of Jyotiram and others v. District Magistrate, Haridwar and others in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1057 of 2017, decided on 13.07.2017, while dealing with the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and Rules and the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 has already held that provisions contained in Section 33-B of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules are entirely different from the one contained in Section 18 (3) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 and what is applicable in such matters would be the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 and not the Rules. 32. Having made the above determination, this Court is of a considered view that the provision which would be presently applicable would be the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, more particularly Section 18 and the reliance must primarily be placed on the original text which is in Hindi with this, I proceed to make the following determination. 33. Admittedly, the DPRO had received the notice bearing signatures of sufficient number of members i.e. 470. It is true that before the orders were passed by the DPRO on 26.08.2017, a day prior to it 50 members had retracted and had given an affidavit stating that they have either not signed the notice earlier or their signatures have been obtained by some misrepresentation. 34. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kishore Kumar would be that in such a situation, the DPRO would have refrain from passing an order calling for a meeting for discussion on No Confidence Motion. 35. 34. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kishore Kumar would be that in such a situation, the DPRO would have refrain from passing an order calling for a meeting for discussion on No Confidence Motion. 35. In my considered view, however, in case such a view is allowed to be permitted it would result in a total chaos and would frustrate the intention of the Legislature, which is very clear that in case sufficient numbers of Gram Sabha (in the present case it is 1/4th of the total members), give a memorandum to the DPRO for bringing No Confidence Motion against the Gram Pradhan, the meeting to discuss the No Confidence Motion must be called. The petitioner alleges that the notice is short of 25 members. First of all, when the notice was first given to the DPRO he has neither the time nor the resources in that short time, nor was it the intention of the Legislature that the DPRO should examine the genuineness of these signatures. All the DPRO has to do is to call for the meeting. In case the contention of the petitioner is true that there are less than 1/4th members against her who have actually intended to call such a meeting, the motion for No Confidence Motion would definitely fail as the meeting can only go on if it is represented by at least 1/2 of the total members of the Gram Sabha. In case it is less than 50% members of the Gram Sabha, such a meeting cannot even move forward. Therefore, once such strict and precise measures are already in force for conduct of these meetings, the apprehension of the petitioner regarding the genuineness of the signatures is totally unfounded, and cannot be a reason to stall a democratic process liable to be now set in motion. 36. I am therefore of a considered view that the notice which has been given by the DPRO is perfectly in accordance with law. The meeting must take place as per the Schedule on 10.09.2017 as this is being done in a democracy where on complaints made by sufficient members of Gram Sabha, a no confidence motion is being brought against the Gram Pradhan. Such a meeting must take place in case of completion of the quorum, in accordance with law. The meeting must take place as per the Schedule on 10.09.2017 as this is being done in a democracy where on complaints made by sufficient members of Gram Sabha, a no confidence motion is being brought against the Gram Pradhan. Such a meeting must take place in case of completion of the quorum, in accordance with law. Any interference on this would amount to interference in a democratic process which would be counter productive in a democracy. 37. Writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 38. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is also a case of fraud where signatures have been obtained of 50 members by fraud and fraud vitiates everything. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry and others Vs. Government of A.P. and others, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221 . 39. First and foremost, whether a fraud has been committed or not has not been proved. Today as of now at best it is an allegation alone that signatures of 50 members of Gram Sabha were obtained by fraud and deceit. In the present democratic process, which is on (i.e., process for discussion on No Confidence Motion), in case the signatures are not valid, the net result would be that the process would result in a failure. The petitioner would always be at liberty to file an FIR or a criminal complaint against such persons, who according to the petitioner, had obtained the signatures fraudulently. That challenge is always open to the petitioner, in case the occasion so arises. Nothing further needs to be said on this aspect. 40. Let a certified copy of this judgment be issued forthwith on payment of usual charges.