Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 167 (ALL)

Rajendra Prasad v. State of U. P.

2020-01-14

SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, by which the District Magistrate has cancelled his earlier order dated 23.9.2019 nominating the petitioner to be the Gram Pradhan temporarily till the regular elections are held for the post of Gram Pradhan. 3. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the post of Gram Pradhan in Gram Panchayat Sujawalpur, District-Kheri, fell vacant due to the death of sitting Gram Pradhan Sri Ram Swaroop on 22.8.2019. By an order dated 20.9.2019, the District Magistrate made temporary arrangements under section 12 (J) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), thereby nominating the petitioner to discharge all duties of Gram Pradhan till the regular election is held. Without holding the regular election due to the pressure of local politician, the District Panchayat Raj Officer sent a letter dated 09.10.2019 to the Block Development Officer, Block-Isa Nagar to call for a general meeting to decide the name of another Gram Pradhan for the purpose of temporary arrangement. The District Magistrate thereafter has passed the order impugned allegedly on the basis of the Resolution dated 02.11.2019 in favour of respondent No. 5 appointing him as temporary Gram Pradhan. 4. It has been submitted that the Resolution dated 02.11.2019 was not passed by the majority of the members of the Gram Panchayat. There are eleven members in the Gram Panchayat but only seven had attended the meeting and five members had signed the Resolution. 5. This Court has perused the order dated 16.12.2019 and also the letter sent by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri dated 09.10.2019 to the Block Development Officer. The letter of the District Panchayat Raj Officer refers to the Writ Petition No. 2440 (M/S.) of 2010 : Sri Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, wherein under similar circumstances this Court had quashed the order of the District Magistrate and directed holding of an open general meeting of the Gram Sabha concerned for election of temporary Gram Pradhan by its order dated 11.2.2010. 6. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the judgment and order dated 11.2.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 2440 (M/S) of 2010 is not applicable in the case at hand. He has produced the copy of the judgment and order dated 3.5.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 2440 (M/S) of 2010. From a perusal thereof, it is evident that the writ petitioner therein was aggrieved by the order of the District Panchayat Raj Officer dated 11.02.2010, whereby the District Panchayat Raj Officer in exercise of power under section 12(J)(2) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, had nominated the contesting respondent to function as Gram Pradhan. The petitioner therein had relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Usha Singh v. District Magistrate, Gorakhpur and others: 1992 ACJ 417, to submit that the Prescribed Authority is under obligation to nominate only such person in whose favour the Gaon Sabha has passed the Resolution. In the writ petition, ten members of the Gram Panchayat out of fifteen had resolved unanimously to nominate the petitioner No. 2 to function has Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned. Therefore, this Court had set aside the order dated 11.02.2010 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri. A direction was also issued to the District Magistrate who is the Prescribed Authority to call a meeting in the exercise of powers provided under the second proviso of section 11 of the Act to enable the members concerned to pass a Resolution on the basis whereof the District Magistrate would nominate the member as proposed by the majority decision of the Gaon Sabha to function as Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned temporarily. 7. It is apparent that no proceedings under proviso II of section 11 of the Act has been called by the Prescribed Authority. Section 11 of the Act relates to the meeting of the Gram Sabha and its functions. 8. There is a proposal in the letter dated 12.10.2019 by the District Panchayat Raj Officer for holding such meeting of the Gram Sabha but the petitioner alleges that no meeting was held in accordance with Rules 37 and 46 of the Rules framed under the Act. 8. There is a proposal in the letter dated 12.10.2019 by the District Panchayat Raj Officer for holding such meeting of the Gram Sabha but the petitioner alleges that no meeting was held in accordance with Rules 37 and 46 of the Rules framed under the Act. From a perusal of Rule 37, it is evident that a notice to hold a meeting of Gram Sabha indicating the date, time and place of meeting shall be published by affixing it at conspicuous places within the area of Gram Sabha and also by beat of drums. A notice of the meeting of the Gram Panchayat shall be sent to the each member through a chowkidar or a peon at least five days before the meeting and it shall also be published by affixing the notice at conspicuous places within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat. 9. In this case, a meeting of the Gram Sabha and not the Gram Panchayat alone is required as it has been alleged that the members of the Gram Panchayat could not come to unanimous decision for appointment of temporary Gram Pradhan. Therefore, the District Magistrate had exercised his power under section 12 (J) of the Act nominating the petitioner in a temporary arrangement. 10. Let a meeting of the Gram Sabha be held by proper publication of notice and dissemination of information by beat of drums, within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the District Magistrate. All the members of the Gram Sabha concerned shall decide as to who shall function as temporary Gram Pradhan till regular elections are held. For the purpose of presiding over the meeting of Gram Sabha, some other person shall be nominated by the District Magistrate from amongst the members of the Gram Panchayat and neither the petitioner nor the respondent No. 5 shall preside over such meeting. Till such time that a Resolution is passed by the Gram Sabha concerned in an open general meeting proposed to be held for the said purpose, the person nominated by the District Magistrate as aforesaid shall function as Gram Pradhan of the village concerned. 11. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.