Oak, C.J. - (1.) THIS Special Appeal arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Ganga Ram was the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha or Dharera in tahsil Etmadpur, district Agra. Shri Verma was the Additional Sub- Divisional Officer. Etmadpur. He passed an order suspending Ganga Ram from the office of Praddhan of the Gaon Sabha. Ganga Ram filed a writ petition challenging the order of suspension. The writ petition has been dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court. Ganga Ram has, therefore, filed the present special appeal.
(2.) THE sole point urged before us by Mr. K. C. Saxena appearing for the appellant is that Shri Verma had no power to pass any such order suspending a Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha. Chap. VII of the Panchayat Raj Act deals with external control. According to Clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Act, the State Government may suspend or remove a member of a Gaon Panchayat or an office bearer of a Gaon Sabha. Section 96-A of the Act empowers the State Government to delegate its powers under the Act to any officer subordinate to it. The question for consideration is whether such power has been validly delegated to Shri Verma. Mr. K. C. Saxena relied upon a number of decisions of this Court in support of his contention that it is impossible for an Additional Sub-Divisional Officer to exercise the powers of the State Government under Section 95 (1) (g), Panchayat Raj Act. In Govind Prasad v. Sheo Kumar, 1958 All LJ 655, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the amendment of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act made by Act No. 19 of 1957 if practically in-fructuous and does not validate the appointment of any person as Additional Sub-Divisional Officer as no authority has been, prescribed for such appointment and designation.
(3.) THE term 'Sub-Divisional Officer' has been defined in Clause (ss) of Section 2, U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. According to that definition, Sub-Divisional Officer includes Additional Sub-Divisional Officer designated or appointed as such by the appropriate authority. The basis of the decision of this Court in Govind Prasad's case, 1958 All LJ 655, was that there was no prescribed authority for such appointment. Govind Prasad's case, 1958 All LI 655, was decided on 6-5-1958. The difficulty pointed out in that case has been solved by U. P. Act No. 10 of 1961. U. P. Act No. 10 of 1961 provides for appointment of Additional Sub- Divisional Officers. Sub-section (3) of Section 18, U. P. Land Revenue Act, as amended by U. P. Act No. 10 of 1961, states: "The State Government may designate any Assistant Collector of the First Class appointed to a district to be Additional Sub-Divisional Officer in one or more sub-divisions of the district." After the amendment of the Land Revenue Act by U. P. Act No. 10 of 1961 there is no difficulty in the appointment of an Assistant Collector by the State Government as an Additional Sub-Divisional Officer.;