JANKI Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) Learned standing counsel states that he has received instructions from the State respondents. He submits on the basis of instructions that notice for meeting of the village Panchayat for 009.2016 was given on 23.08.2016. In the aforesaid meeting more than 1300 residents of the village participated out of total population of about 1800. Videography and photograph were also done. Three persons namely Sri Janki Prasad son of Ram Lal, Sri Hori Lal and the petitioner contested for selection of fair price shop agent. Sri Janki Prasad son of Ram Lal secured 478 votes, Sri Hori Lal secured 837 votes and the petitioner secured merely 7 votes. Proposal was passed by the village panchayat in favour of Sri Hori Lal who secured highest votes, i.e. 837 votes. Consequently, the said proposal was forwarded to the Tehsil level committee following due procedure which was approved and thereafter the fair price shop in question was allotted to the aforesaid Sri Hori Lal (respondent No.5). Learned standing counsel has also produced several photographs of the meeting convened on 009.2016 which clearly shows that it was attended by large number of villagers. The photographs have also been shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has participated in the meeting without any objection but after being unsuccessful he is objecting to the meeting to be invalid.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 32 of the U.P. Panchayat Rules provides for 15 days notice for convening a meeting of the village panchayat. Since according to own showing of the State respondents, the notice of meeting was given on 208.2016 for meeting to be convened for 02.09.2016 and therefore the notice is short of the prescribed number of days for the meeting. Consequently, the meeting convened cannot be said to be a valid meeting.