Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1149 (ALL)

PANNA LAL v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-05-08

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. On 09.03.2018, ten out of thirteen members of the Gram Panchyat gave an application evidencing their intention of bringing a motion for no confidence against the Pradhan under Section 14 of the U.P. Panchyat Raj Act, 1947. Under Rule 33 B of the U.P. Panchyat Raj Rules, following were the sine qua non. (i) The application had to be signed by not less than one half of the total number of the members of the Gram Panchyat. (ii) They had to state the reasons for moving the motion. (iii) The application had to be delivered in person by at least five of the members of the Gram Panchyat who had signed the notice. (iv) It was necessary for those five members who had signed the notice to furnish an affidavit and in it they had to swear that the members who had signed the initial application had actually signed. (v) The District Panchyat Raj Officer before proceeding with the actual no confidence motion had to be himself satisfied regarding the genuineness of the signatures of the members who had signed the notice. In the instant case when the notice was filed before the District Panchyat Raj Officer, the same was accompanied by signatures of 1011 out of 1832 members of the Gram Sabha. The affidavit which was filed by the 10 members of the Gram Panchyat had stated about the correctness of the signatures of the members of the Gram Sabha, who had signed the proposal for no confidence. On 27.03.2018, District Panchyat Raj Officer looked into the signatures of all the 1011 members of the Gram Sabha who had signed and thereafter, had rejected the application which had been filed to initiate the motion of no confidence. Aggrieved by the refusal of the District Panchyat Raj Officer, the instant writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order dated 27.03.2018 by stating that the District Panchyat Raj Officer did not abide by the provisions of Rule 33 B of the U.P. Panchyat Raj Rules 1947. Aggrieved by the refusal of the District Panchyat Raj Officer, the instant writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order dated 27.03.2018 by stating that the District Panchyat Raj Officer did not abide by the provisions of Rule 33 B of the U.P. Panchyat Raj Rules 1947. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that instead of only looking to genuineness of the signatures of the members of Gram Panchyat who had filed the application dated 09.03.2018, the District Panchyat Raj Officer had looked into the signatures of all the members of the Gram Sabha, who had signed the resolution. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order was thus erroneous and deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, Sri Narendra Mohan, however, submits that when the 10 members of the Gram Panchyat who had signed the application and had filed the same showing their intention to file the resolution then they had not given their affidavits in accordance with the provisions of Rule 33B. He submits that the members of the Gram Panchyat who had personally gone to present the application had to certify that the signatures of the other members of the Gram Panchyat who had signed the application were actually theirs. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, Sri Narendra Mohan further submits that from a perusal of the paragraph 6 of the affidavit which had been filed by the 10 members before the District Panchyat Raj Officer it becomes clear that the affidavits had verified the signatures of the members of all the Gram Sabha members totaling 1011 and, therefore, submits that the affidavit was defective. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that definitely the order dated 27.03.2018 cannot be sustained in the eye of law as the provisions of Rule 33 B of the U.P. Panchyat Raj Rules had mandated the District Panchyat Raj Officer to look into the signatures of the members of the Gram Panchyat only and the Gram Panchyat members had infact verified the signatures of all the 1011 Gram Sabha members. However, a simple remand to the District Panchyat Raj Officer would be of no use as I find that the affidavits, which had been submitted by the members of Gram Panchyat were also defective. However, a simple remand to the District Panchyat Raj Officer would be of no use as I find that the affidavits, which had been submitted by the members of Gram Panchyat were also defective. Under such circumstances, I not only quash the impugned order dated 23.03.2018 but also direct that if the petitioners intend to continue with the no confidence motion then along with the application which they had already submitted they may file a fresh affidavit, which shall be in accordance with the provisions of Rule 33 B of the U.P. Panchyat Raj Rules 1947. Thereafter, the District Panchyat Raj Officer shall consider the application and the affidavits and, pass a fresh order. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed.