- (1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Girish Kumar Singh appears for contesting respondent. Learned Standing Counsel appears for State-respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner alongwith four other members of the Gram Sabha, Ram Nagar, presented a motion to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Pilibhit to con vene a meeting to consider a 'no confidence motion' vide notice dated 2. 11. 2007 signed by 1189 members of Gaon Sabha. THE District Panchayat Raj Officer nominated the District Horticulture Officer Pilibhit to verify these signatures. He made a proclamation by beat of drums in the village on 12. 11. 2007 calling the villagers to assemble on 14. 11. 2007 for verifying the signatures. THE District Hor ticulture Officer found that 913 persons/villagers did not appear to verify their signatures and thumb impressions and that 16 persons present expressed their doubts over the signatures/thumb impressions. On the next day, on 15. 11. 2007, on receiving the report, the District Panchayat Raj Officer found that the notice was not verified and cancelled the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that five members presenting the notice affirmed in their affidavits and verified the signatures/thumb impression on the notice. The law does not prescribe for any specific procedure under the Rules for verification. The subjective satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority, and his discretion however, must be used in a reasonable manner to verify the signa ture/thumb impression on the notice. The procedure adopted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer was neither reasonable nor fair and over reaches the re quirement prescribed in law. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submit that the District Panchayat Raj Officer directed the District Horticulture Officer, and that the notice by beat of drum to verify the signatures/thumb impression on the no tice of 'no confidence motion' was a proper procedure. According to him there was nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the Prescribed Authority.
(3.) IN the Full Bench case of Mathura Prasad Tewari v. Assistant District Panchayat Ra} Officer, 1966 ALJ 672 (FB) Hon. M. C. Desai, C. J. , observed as follows: "the most that can be said is that the matter is in the discretion of the Prescribed Authority if a complaint is made to it that material number of signatures is invalid, it may in its discretion, make enquiry or refuse to make it. " Similar is the view taken by Hon'ble Satish Chandra, J. as he then was, in Daya Shankar v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, 1968 ALJ 753: "the Prescribed Authority was not obliged by law to make an enquiry into the genuineness or otherwise of the signatures appended to the notice. The enquiry directed to be conducted in the instant case was informal for the personal satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority for which the Pradhan or other members of the Gaon Sabha have no concern or interest. " A Division Bench of this Court in Banshoo v. District Panchayat Raj Officer Jaunpur, 1986 UPLBEC 429, approved the decision and held that it was the discretion of the Prescribed Authority to hold or not to hold the enquiry would be justified depending upon the facts of the case, and even the enquiry is to be made, it should not be a long drawn enquiry so as to take it beyond the statutory period of thirty days as required by Rule 33-B of the Rules made under U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.;