Gulab vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 590 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 25
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42564 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Gulab
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Chaube
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Diwakar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the licence to run the fair price shop be issued to the petitioner in pursuance of the resolution dated 21.8.2017.

In the instant case when the Resolution dated 21.8.2017 was not being given effect to the petitioner's election/selection as a dealer was declared bad.

The contention of the petitioner is that after the fair price shop situate in Gram Panchayat Mawaiya fell vacant on account of the fact that the wife of the erstwhile licencee had got elected as a Gram Pradhan, a meeting was called on 21.8.2017 for the selection of a fresh licencee to run the fair price shop in Gram Panchayat mawaiya. He states that the meeting which culminated in the Resolution dated 21.8.2017 should have been given effect to even if the Pradhan had refused to sign on the Resolution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the open meeting he had got the maximum number of votes and, therefore, the licence to run the fair price shop was to be given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the open meeting was conducted and voting took place photography and videography was also undergone and the resolution was passed in the presence of the Gram Panchayat Adhikari and the Junior Engineer of the Regional Engineering Service who were there as they were the nominees of the Government. They were throughout present during the meeting and had also given their report along with the resolution. Learned counsel has submitted that if the Proceeding Register dated 21.8.2017 was seen then the report of the observers would make it clear that the Gram Sabha had elected the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer in the meeting. The report had also stated that when the votes were counted and it was found that the petitoner had got selected, the Pradhan who was presiding over the meeting came out of it and refused to put her signature on the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after the meeting was over and the proceedings were forwarded to the Sub-divisional Officer, the respondent no.3, who even though, agreed with the fact that the Gram Pradhan had presided over the meeting refused to give his approval as according to him there was no signature over the Resolution dated 21.8.2017of the Pradhan. The petitioner in the writ petitioner therefore had also prayed that the resolution dated 21.8.2017 be given effect to and he be appointed a fair price shop dealer.

Learned counsel has submitted that as per Section 11 of the U.P. Pranchayat Raj Act, 1947 meetings had to be presided over by the Gram Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat. He has submitted that the essential aspect of the meeting was that it should be presided over by the Pradhan. Learned counsel submits that the fact that the Pradhan presided over the meeting could be evidenced by his/her signatue and, therefore, in Rule 35-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rule, 1947 it had been provided that the proceedings of a Gram Sabha meeting would be signed by the Pradhan. Learned counsel for the petitoner further submis that in the present times when for the allotment of a fair price shop it was provided that observers who were State Government employees would be present then to evidence the presence of the Pradhan, the signature was not essential and the statements of the government employees was sufficient. Learned counsel further submits that the Government by means of various Government Orders also provided for videography and photography which show that the Pradhan was present and presiding. Learned counsel for the petitoner relied upon Blacks Law Dictionary and showed to the Court the meaning of the word 'preside' which is as follows:

"1. To occupy the place of authority, esp. as a judge during a hearing or trial . 2. To exercise management or control ."

He submitted that what was therefore essential was that the Pradhan should have presided over the meeting. Learned counsel has submitted that a signature of an individual has different meanings in different circumstances. He once again referred to the meaning of the word 'signature' in the Balcks Law Dictionary and submitted that a person's name or mark written by that person or at the persons directions was also a signature. Learned counsel submitted that the meaning of the word 'signature' had different connotations in different circumstances. If it was put on a sale deed, will, contract, promissory note, electioneering papers, Judges' orders and legal proceedings or office copies then it would mean that a particular person had to compulsorily sign those documents in a particular manner because in the documents which have been mentioned above, signatures had to be put over them as without the signature the declaration of that person would not be complete. He submits that when a signature is put on any of the documents named above then the intention of the person becomes clear. However, he submits that if a signature was to be made only to show that the person was present then it did not require a manual signature and thus learned counsel submittted that in the present case what was essential was that the Pradhan who had to preside over the meeting should have been actually present. If two observers sent by the Government themselves had given a report that the Pradhan was present and had presided, but had only refused to put her signatures over the proceedings, it would be sufficient proof of the fact that the Pradhan had presided over the meeting and, therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the respondent no.3, the Sub-divisional Officer could not have rejected the resolution dated 21.8.2017 by simply stating that the resolution could not be effectuated as the signature of the Pradhan was not present on it. Learned counsel for the petitoner further submitted that election in a democratic society is something very sacrosanct and an election which takes place cannot be lightly done away with. He submits that in the instant case the petitoner was declined the selection by the officials because the Pradhan had refused to put her signatures. The result of the election could not be nullified as definitely the Pradhan had presided and it was found by the observer that she had presided over the proceedings. To bother his submission that signatures at times were put only for the purposes of certainty learned counsel relied upon AIR 1938 PC 292 (Firm Gokal Chand-Jagan Nath vs. Firm Nand Ram Das-Atma Ram). He relied on paragraph-8 of the judgment and so the same is being reproduced here as under :

"8. The rule does not say that if its requirements are not complied with the judgment shall be a nullity. So startling a result would need clear and precise words. Indeed the rule does not even state any definite time in which it is to be fulfilled. The time is left to be defined by what is reasonable. The rule from its very nature is not intended to affect the rights of parties to a judgment. It is intended to secure certainty in the ascertainment of what the judgment was. It is a rule which Judges are required to comply with for that object. No doubt in practice Judges do so comply, as it is their duty to do. But accidents may happen. A Judge may die after giving judgment but before he has had a reasonable opportunity to sign it. The Court must have inherent jurisdiction to supply such a defect. The case of a Judge who has gone on leave before signing the judgment may call for more comment, but even so the convenience of the Court and the interest of litigants must prevail. The defect is merely an irregularity. But in truth the difficulty is disposed of by Sections 99 and 108 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 99 provides that no decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded, in appeal on account ofany error, defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court. That section conies in the part dealing with appeals from original decrees. But Section 108 applies the same provision to appeals from appellate decrees, and it is always in the discretion of the Board to apply the principle on appeal to His Majesty in Council. In their Lordships' judgment, the defect here was an irregularity not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court, and is no ground for setting aside the decree. "

In reply, the learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that the signature of the Pradhan was essential and without it the proceeding would be a void proceedng. He relied upon Rule-35-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 and the learned Standing Counsel read out Rule 35-A and the same is reproduced hereas under:

"35-A. Procedure at the meeting of Gram Sabha- subject to the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, the following procedure shall be followed at the meeting of a Gram Sabha:

(a) The proceedings of the meetings shall be read and fonfirmed and then signed by the Pradhan.

(b) The accounts of the period elapsed since the last meeting shall be presented for information and consideration.

(c) Other items, if any, shall then be taken up and considered."

Having heard the learned cousnel for the parties, I am of the view that Sub-divisional Officer should not have rejected the resolution dated 21.8.2017 and should have forwarded the same to the Committee for its approval.

In the present case, as per Section 11 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 what was essential was that the Pradhan should have presided over the meeting. The fact that the Pradhan presided over the meeting was clear from the notings of the two observers sent by the State Government. If the Sub-divisional Officer had any doubt about the notings then he could have referred to the videography and photography which had taken place. Signature in the present context was only indicative of the fact that the Pradhan was present and presiding over the meeting. It did not mean that the Pradhan by her signature was passing any order or selling any property.

Under such circumstances, it can be safely said that the resolution was passed on 21.8.2017.

I, therefore, direct that the Sub-divisional Officer deeming that the signature of the Pradhan was there on the resolution may proceed with the granting of the approval.

The writ petition is, therefore, allowed.

Order Date :- 17.5.2018

Ashish Pd.