H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - (1.) WHEN this petition first came up for hearing, before the Bench, it noticed a conflict of opinion between two Division Benches of this Court, one reported in Ganga Ram v. ASDO II, Etmadpur, 1967 ALJ 988 and the other reported in The District Magistrate, Unnao v. Paras Nath Shukla, 1967 AWR 485. Accordingly the Bench hearing the petition directed that "the papers be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to form a larger Bench to resolve the conflict". That is how the case has come up before us. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that the entire case has not been referred to the Full Bench and it has only to resolve the conflict of judicial opinion on the question in controversy.
(2.) THE question which requires consideration is formulated as follows: Whether the power enjoyed by the State Government Under Section 95(1)(g) of the UP Panchayat Raj Act 1947, having been delegated Under Section 96 -A of the Act to the SDO can be exercised by the Addl. SDO also within the meaning of the Act Section 95(1)(g) reads: The State Government may suspend or remove a member of a Gaon Panchayat or joint committee (or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti), an office -bearer of a Gaon Sabha or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat.... Section 96 -A, which provides for the delegation of powers by the State Government is as follows: The State Government may delegate all or any of its powers under this Act to any officer or authority subordinate to it subject to such conditions and restrictions as it may deem fit to impose. By Notification No. 4483P -XXX -111 -50 -57, dated 19 -12 -58, published in Part III of the UP Gazette dated 27 -12 -1958, the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred on it Under Section 96 -A of the Act, delegated its powers to take action Under Clause (g) of Sub -section (1) of Section 95 of the Act to the SDO subject to the condition that an order of removal passed by him shall be appealable to the DM, within 30 days from the date of such order.
(3.) IT is contended that as the aforesaid delegation of the powers is in favour of the SDM, who is a persona designata, it cannot be construed to vest those powers in the Addl. SDO. On the other hand, it has been urged by the learned Standing Counsel that as the powers have been delegated to an officer and not to a person there is no reason why, in view of Section 2(ss) of the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, those powers cannot be exercised by the Addl. SDO.;