Pradeep Kant, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel.
(2.) Certain facts which were not pleaded in the writ petition have been brought on record by means of supplementary-affidavit filed today. The petitioner is an elected Pradhan of Gaon Sabha concerned having been elected from the constituency reserved for women in the year 1995. A notice of no-confidence motion was moved by eight members of Gram Panchayat before the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Unnao on 22.12.99 and the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Unnao issued a notice under Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) fixing 13.1.2000 as a date for consideration of motion of no-confidence at a given time and place. The petitioner initially challenged the said proceedings solely on the ground that no reasons have been given in the notice of no-confidence for making no-confidence motion against Pradhan and, therefore, no meeting can be held for the purpose on such a vague notice. The Court vide order dated 11.1.2000 passed an order that the meeting of no-confidence motion may be held but the result of the same shall not be given effect to and the State Counsel was directed to produce the record at the time of hearing.
(3.) The record has been produced before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner by means of supplementary affidavit filed today alleged that the petitioner being a woman having been elected as Pradhan from women's constituency cannot be removed by a motion of no-confidence as in her absence the charge will be taken by Up-Pradhan who does not belong to the women's category being a male member and, therefore, the very purpose of reservation would be frustrated. The contention is that the Up-Pradhan will act as Pradhan in a constituency which is otherwise reserved for women and for which he is not eligible to contest for the seat of Pradhan. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was obligatory upon the members giving notice of no-confidence motion to give some reasons for moving the motion and in absence of such reasons being defined, the District Panchayat Raj Officer should have rejected the request of the members and should not have fixed any date for consideration of the motion. In support of this contention, learned counsel has relied upon the provisions of Rule 33B (1) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947. The relevant provision reads as under : "33B (1). A written notice of the intention to move a motion for removal of the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan under Section 14 of the Act shall be necessary. It shall be signed by not less than one half of the total number of members of the Gaon Sabha and shall state the reasons for moving the motion and it shall be delivered in person by at least five members signing the notice to the prescribed authority." The emphasis has been laid that the rule specifically provides that the notice of the intention to move a motion for removal of the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan under Section 14 of the Act shall be necessary which shall be signed by not less than one half of the total number of members of the Gaon Sabha and shall state the reasons for moving the motion,. The argument need not be scrutinised on the strength of submission made as from the record, it is clear that the notice of no-confidence motion contains various reasons for moving the motion. The reasons for moving the motion are that the husband of the petitioner is a Government teacher and as a matter of fact, he looks after the work of the petitioner as Pradhan : neither any open meeting has been called for by the petitioner as Pradhan nor any meeting of Gaon Panchayat has been summoned. The Pradhan is acting on his own will without taking any consultation or taking the opinion of the members of Gaon Panchayat ; the money given to her for Jawahar Rojgar Yojana has been misutilised and misappropriated for her own ends and no development work has been done the allotments have been made on taking certain gratification under Indira Avas Scheme. In my opinion, the reasons for moving no-confidence motion are apparent in the notice itself. The learned counsel submitted that these are vague allegations for which no evidence has been adduced. This argument deserves to be rejected on the face of it.;