D.S.Sinha - (1.) UPON a written notice of the members of their intention to move a motion of non-confidence against the Pradhan and Up-Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Behrawati Khas, Tehsil Kirawali, District Agra, under Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), read with Rule 33-B of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Rules'), the Prescribed Authority District Panchayat Raj Officer, Agra has, by means a notice dated 5th March, 1990, convened a meeting to be held on 22-3-1990 for consideration of the motion of non-confidence.
(2.) DURING the period between the submission of the notice under Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 33-B of the Rules and issuance of the notice dated 5th March, 1990, convening the meeting for consideration of non-confidence motion on 22nd March, 1990, it is alleged, certain objection was filed before the Prescribed Authority asserting therein that the signatures of a large number of the signatories of the notice were not genuine. It was also asserted that if proper inquiry was held it would be found that most of the signatures were forged, and if their signatures were excluded the notice dated 5th March, 1990 would become invalid as it would fall short of the requisite number of the members required to sign the notice of intention to move non-confidence. By means of this petition, the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the Prescribed Authority to hold an inquiry about the genuineness of the signatures appearing on the notice. They further pray for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated 5th March, 1990, convenig the meeting on 22nd March, 1990 for consideration of non-confidence motion. The contention of Shri Tej Pal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the Prescribed Authority was bound to bold an inquiry about the genuineness of the signatures on the notice. To fortify this submission the learned counsel places reliance upon a Division Court decision of this Court rendered in Banshoo v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jaunpur, 1986 AWC 771.
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Prescribed Authority was legally bound to hold an inquiry is wholly misconceived and untenable. In a decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Mathura Prasad Tewari v. Assistant District Panchayat Raj Officer, 1966 Alld. Weekly Reporter 765 (1) it has been authoritatively ruled that the Prescribed Authority has a discretion in the matter. It may, in its discretion, make an inquiry or refuse to make it. THE reliance upon the decision of the Division Court in Banshoo v. District Panchayat Raj Officer (supra) is misplaced inasmuch as the said decision does not support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. As a matter of fact, in paragtaph 10 of the said decision, the Division Court also has ruled that the Prescribed Authority has a discretion to hold or not to hold an inquiry. Second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the notice dated 5th March, 1990, convening the meeting for consideration of motion of non-confidence, is invalid, inasmuch as it is a composite notice. There is no law, either statutory or otherwise, prohibiting a composite- notice of the intention to move a motion of non-confidence against the Pradhan and Up-Pradhan being given. The contention of the learned counsel has no force and is, therefore rejected.;