R. Dayal, J. - (1.) These special appeals involve common question of law and arise from the judgments of a learned Single Judge whereby writ petitions filed by the appellants to challenge no-confidence proceedings initiated against them as Pradhans of Gram Panchayats were dismissed, placing reliance on the judgment dated 7-5-1997 passed in writ petition No. 14191 of 1991, Smt. Ram Beti v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Budaun and Ors. [Reported in (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1583].
(2.) We have heard Sri N. C Rajvanshi and Sri R. C. Singh, Advocates, for the appellants and Sri Pradeep Gupta, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, and Shri H. P. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submit that whereas under Section 11-B of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (here-in-after referred to as the Act). Pradhan is to be elected by all the persons registered in the electoral rolls far the territorial constituencies of the Panchayat area from amongst themselves, Section 14 as amended in 1994 provides for removal of a duly elected Pradhan by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting of the Gram Panchayat, According to the learned counsel, provision for removal by Gram Panchayat which consists of only a few persons is against democratic principles and irrational and as such Section 14 of the Act should be declared as ultra vires of the Constitution. On the other hand, Sri Pradeep Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the matter stands concluded by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Rae Bareilly and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2042: (1993) 1 UPLBEC 35 (SC) where similar contention with respect to U.P. Municipalities Act repelled.;