V. Bhargava, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the District Panchayat Officer, the Asstt. District Panchayat Officer and the State of U.P. against a judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was directed against a resolution passed by the Gaon Sabha of Bisahra removing Jaibir Singh respondent from the office of the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. Jaibir Singh respondent came to this Court in the writ petition alleging that the meeting at which the resolution of no confidence was passed was not a valid meeting because it was held on the basis of a requisition which did not satisfy the requirements of the Rules framed under the Panchayat Raj Act for calling of such a meeting. The relevant Rule is 33-B which lays down that a written notice of the intention to move a resolution for removal of the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan under Sec. 14 of the Panchayat Raj Act shall be necessary, that it shall be signed by not less than half of the total number of the members of the Gaon Sabha, and shall state the reasons for moving the motion, and shall be delivered in person by at least five members (signing the notice) to the prescribed authority. According to Jaibir Singh, this notice on the basis of which the meeting was called, in which the no confidence resolution against him was passed, was not actually signed by more than half of the members of the Gaon Sabha inasmuch as the signatures of some of the members had been obtained by fraud. The notice purported to contain 992 signatures. Jaibir Singh's case in the writ petition was that as many as 142 signatures had been improperly secured because those 142 members were made to sign on a paper on being given the assurance that their signature were being obtained on some application for construction of a drain in the village. An objection to this effect was taken, before the meeting was called by the prescribed authority, by the Up-Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. The prescribed authority, who is appellant No. 2 in this appeal, refused to entertain this objection and declined to decide the question whether 142 signatures were improperly obtained. The learned Single Judge in these circumstances held that it is not possible to find that the meeting was validly held. According to the learned Single Judge, the prescribed authority should have decided the objection raised about the impropriety of 142 signatures and should have called a meeting only after recording a finding on this objection whether there were sufficient number of genuine signatories so as to bring the number of signatories to a number which was not less than one half of the total membership of the Gaon Sabha. It is undisputed that, if these 142 signatories are ignored, the remaining 850 would be less than one half of the total number of members of the Gaon Sabha so that the notice would not satisfy the requirements of the rules.
(2.) In this appeal, the contention on behalf of the three appellants is that appellant No. 2 was justified in declining to decide this question and in calling the meeting without going into this matter. It is further urged that the learned Single Judge is wrong in holding that it was incumbent on appellant No. 2 to go into this question for the purpose of holding a valid meeting.
(3.) We have heard the learned Additional Senior Standing counsel on this appeal, and we are unable to hold that there is any force in it. It is true, as urged by him, that the rules framed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act do not specifically require any enquiry or recording of a finding by the prescribed authority if any objection as to the validity of a requisition for a meeting under R. 33-B is raised before him. It is, however, clear from a reading of the rule that, in case such an objection is taken before the prescribed authority it would be necessary for the prescribed authority to enquire into it and record a finding. A meeting called on the basis of the notice would only be valid if, as a result of that finding, it is found by him that the notice satisfied the requirements of Rule 33-B. The rule says that the notice should be signed by not less than half of the total number of the members of the Gaon Sabha. It is obvious that the prescribed authority, who receives the notice and has to call a meeting on its basis, will have to count the number of the signatories so as to determine whether it is signed by more than half of the total number of the members of the Gaon Sabha. Further, it will be for him to satisfy himself whether the signatures are of persons who are members of the Gaon Sabha, or of strangers or outsiders. In case the objection is taken that some or all of the signatures are forgeries, it would be again for him to determine whether the signatures are genuine signatures of the members of the Sabha or not. This duty is cast on the prescribed authority because it is the prescribed authority who is entrusted with the duty of calling a meeting on receipt of the notice and he, being the sole authority entrusted with that duty, has to determine whether the notice is a proper case the allegation before the prescribed authority was that some of the signatures had been obtained from signatures under false pretence inasmuch as the signatures were told that they were signing some sort of application for construction of a drain in the village. The plea thus was that 142 signatures had been obtained by fraud and that these 142 members had signed the notice without knowing that it was a notice under Rule 33-B that they were signing. If this was really correct, it would necessarily mean that the notice was not signed as a notice under Rule 33-B by these 142 members, and their signatures having been obtained by fraud they could not be treated as signatories to that notice. The determination whether these 142 signatories were genuine signatories of the notice or not had to be made by the prerecord authority i.e. appellant No. 2. The appellant No. 2 declined to do so and thus failed to do the duty entrusted to him under the Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In these circumstances, we hold that the learned Single Judge was quite right in quashing the resolution passed at the meeting and in directing appellant No. 2 to do his duty of deciding the objection, and then calling the meeting provided he finds that the notice satisfies the requirements of Rule 33-B. There is no reason for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;