Allahabad High Court
Chuttan vs The State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 4 ... on 1 October, 2013
Bench: Tarun Agarwala
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 53461 of 2013
Petitioner :- Chuttan
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjeet Asthana,N.K. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ved Prakash Mishra
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
The petitioner was elected as a Pradhan and was removed by a majority of 2/3rd members of the Gram Sabha. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the motion of no confidence, has filed the present writ petition.
The Court has read and re-read all the 16 paragraphs of the writ petition and the grounds mentioned therein and has failed to decipher the actual grounds, on which, the petitioner wants to challenge the order of no confidence.
However, from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court finds that the challenge has been made on the ground that the initial notice issued under Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with Rule 33-B of U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 was invalid, and consequently, all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto including the motion of no confidence were illegal and were liable to be quashed. To enlarge this submission, the learned counsel stressed that a minimum of 15 days notice as contemplated under Section 14 of the Act was not given nor the notice was signed by five members nor the notice was given on an affidavit. Further, the prescribed authority did not verify the signatures contained in the notice. These submissions are not depicted in any paragraph of the writ petition.
The Court is of the opinion that such submissions cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. The validity of the notice, signatures on affidavits, signatures to be verified by the prescribed authority are all relevant till prior to the stage of holding of a no confidence motion, which can be challenged at that stage, but once a notice of no confidence motion is carried out, the legality or illegality of such notice becomes redundant and cannot be entertained. The reason is not far to see. The Pradhan holds an elected office under law. He could be removed by a majority of 2/3rd of the members of the Gram Sabha present and voting. The provision of no confidence motion, as reflected in Section 14 read with 33-B of the Rules, is a method to ensure that an elected representative continues to hold the office till such time, he loses the confidence of the electorate. The extra ordinary 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 of power, it reflects the will of the electorate which is supreme in contradistinction to the validity of the notice signed by five members on an affidavit and signed by more than 50 per cent of the members of the Gram Sabha, Such will of the electorate, which is reflected in the motion of no confidence is of primal importance and is required to be adhered to.
In the instant case, the Court finds that out of 1336 votes, 1159 votes went against the petitioner and 150 persons voted in favour of the petitioner. More than 2/3rd of the members of the Gram Panchayat voted in unison removing the Pradhan. Such power of the electorate, through whom the petitioner was initially elected, has to be respected.
For the reasons stated aforesaid, since no illegality has been found in the holding of the motion of no confidence, the Court does not find any reason to interfere.
The writ petition is dismissed summarily.
Order Date :- 1.10.2013
Sanjeev
(Tarun Agarwala,J.)
