D.S.Sinha - (1.) A meeting of the members of the Gaon Sabha, Mathia Alam, Tehsil Padrauna, District Deoria for consideration of motion of non- confidence against the petitioner, who is Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, has been convened by the Prescribed Authority to be held on 13th April, 1990 vide notice dated 26th March, 1990. This notice is under challenge in the instant writ petition.
(2.) THE first contention of Shri M. A.Qadeer, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the aforesaid meeting could not be convened in as much as the notice given by the members of the Gaon Sabha to the relevant authority was not signed by requisite number of the members of the Gaon Sabha as envisaged by Rule 33-B of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947, hereinafter called the Rules. To the petition is annexed a copy of the report dated 20th March, 1990, submitted by the Assistant Development Officer (Antiexure-2) which states that total number of members of the Gaon Sabha is 1465; It further states that on the notice signatures and thumb-impressions of 803 members were found. It also states that upon inquiry being made 14 members asserted that their signatures and thumb-impressions, alleged to appear on the notice, were forged. Even if the signatures and thumb-impressions of these 14 members are excluded the notice will not fall short of the signatures by the requisite number of the members, namely, more than half of the total number of the members of the Gaon Sabha, which in the instant case would obviously be 733. In this view of the matter, the first contention of the learned counsel has no substance and is, therefore rejected. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice dated 26th March, 1990, whereby the meeting of the members of the Gaon Sabha has been convened, does not disclose that the Prescribed Authority was satisfied that the notice by the members of the Gaon Sabha Urging him to call a meeting of the Gaon Sabha for consideration of motion of non-confidence against the petitioner was signed by the requisite number of the members of the Gaon Sabha.
(3.) THERE is no law which obliges the Prescribed Authority to state in the notice calling the meeting of the members of Gaon Sabha that he was satisfied about the existence of the signatures or thumb-impressions of the requisite number of the members of the Gaon Sabha on the notice tendered to him by the members under Rule 33-B of the Rules. It cannot be disputed that the Prescribed Authority is a statutory functionary and, while convening the meeting of the members of the Gaon Sabha, it exercised statutory power. When a statutory functionary exercises statutory power it has to be presumed that it has exercised that power in accordance with law unless the said presumption is duly rebutted. In the instant case, there is absolutely no material to rebut the said presumption.;