- (1.) THE petitioner was Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha. A notice to move a motion of non-confidence against him was presented as contemplated by rule 33-B of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rule). 26th September, 1983 was the date fixed for the meeting to consider the motion. On inquiry made before that date, however, it transpired that the notice did not contain the signatures of more than 50 per cent of the members of the Gaon Sabha. THE meeting was consequently cancelled. THEreafter, another notice was given on 21st September, 1983. This notice ex facie contained the signatures or thumb impressions of more than 50 per cent of the members of the Gaon Sabha. On the basis of this notice a meeting of the Gaon Sabha was convened for 12th October, 1983. On that date, the requisite motion was moved and carried by a majority of more than two-third of the members present and voting. By this writ petition the proceedings of that meeting are sought to be quashed.
(2.) IT has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner that even the second notice was not signed by more than 50 per cent of the members of the Gaon Sabha and an inquiry should have been made in this regard. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner even though a request was made in this behalf but no heed was paid to it. We find it difficult to agree with this submission. A copy of the application, which is said to have been made in this connection by the petitioner, has been attached as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. ITs perusal indicates that neither any specific assertion was made therein that the notice did not contain the signatures of more than 50 per cent of the members of the Gaon Sabha, nor was any request made for making an inquiry. On the other hand, the said application purports to raise an objection contemplated by sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The application was dismissed by the authority concerned by an order, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. In our opinion, it was rightly dismissed, because on the face of it section 14 (3) of the Act was not applicable inasmuch as the said section applies only to a case where the motion could not be taken up for want of quorum or failed for lack of requisite majority at the meeting. In the instant case, the meeting scheduled for 26th September, 1983, had not been adjourned for want of quorum, nor had the motion failed. It was then urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the procedure contemplated by sub-rule (3) of rule 33-B of the Rules was not followed by the Presiding Officer inasmuch as no motion was moved or discussed in the meeting. We find it difficult to agree with this submission either. A perusal of the proceedings of the meeting, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 13 to the writ petition, indicates that the procedure contemplated by rule 33-B (3) of the Rules was followed. It indicates that the Presiding Officer on being satisfied that the quorum was complete read to the members of the Gaon Sabha the notice received by him. It also indicates that the motion was moved and discussed and thereafter the members were required to vote by secret ballot. Counsel for the petitioner then urged that the quorum of the meeting was not complete. This submission again we find it difficult to agree with. The motion has to be considered in a meeting of the Gaon Sabha as is apparent from section 14 (1) of the Act. Chapter Ill of the Act deals with " The Gaon Sabha : Its meetings and functions ". Sections 11 and 14 both fall under this Chapter. Section 11 (2) of the Act provides that " for any meeting of the Gaon Sabha one-fifth of the number of members shall form the quorum provided that no quorum shall be necessary for a meeting adjourned for want of quorum." It is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that more than one-fifth of the members of the Gaon Sabha were present in the meeting. What has, however, been urged is that the quorum for such a meeting should have been at least 50 per cent of the members of the Gaon Sabha. In view of the specific statutory provision contained in section 11 (2) of the Act we find it difficult to agree with this submission that the quorum should be not of one-fifth of the members of the Gaon Sabha but of more than 50 per cent thereof. The view which we take also finds support from a Full Bench decision of this Court in Mathura Prasad Tewari v. Assistant District Panchayat Officer, Faizabad , 1966 AWR 765 (1) where it has been pointed out that the quorum for such a meeting is one-fifth of the total number of members of the Gaon Sabha.
(3.) IT was then urged by the counsel for the petitioner that two ballot boxes were kept for voting, contrary to the procedure prescribed in rule 33-B of the Rules, one for those who wanted to vote for the motion and the other for those who wanted to vote against it. In this connection, reliance was placed by the petitioner on two photographs filed as Annexures 10 and 11 to the writ petition. After having gone through these photographs we are of the opinion that the submission has no substance. We are further of opinion that even if this submission had any substance it was a mere irregularity and would have no bearing on the result of the voting. Counsel for the petitioner then urged that the use of the word "majority" in section 14 (1) of the Act contemplated that the difference between the number of members who voted for the motion and those who voted against it should be two-third of the members present and voting. On the plain language of the sub-section we find it difficult to agree with this submission either. Further, the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner on this point too is in the teeth of the observations made in this behalf in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Mathura Prasad Tewari v. Assistant District Panchayat Officer, Faizabad, 1966 AWR 765 (1) (supra).;