SUNIL AMBWANI, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Umesh Narain Sharrna, Sr. Advocate as­sisted by Shri G.K. Singh, learned Counsel for Shri Jawahar Lal, the sitting Pradhan and petitioner in Writ Petition No. 17526 of 2008, and Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, Sr. Advo­cate assisted by Shri S.K. Sharma for Shri Surya Prakash Dwivedi, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18339 of 2008. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State-respondents.
(2.) A short question that call for de­cision in this case is whether the meeting of the electors of the Gaon Sabha for consider­ing 'no confidence motion' against the sit­ting Pradhan under section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with Rule 33-B and Rule 33-D of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1947 can be said to be validly held if it is disturbed by commotion, mayhem, illegal confinement of the Chairman of the meeting resulting into pandemonium af­fecting the result of the meeting. Shri Jawahar Lal was elected as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Ram Na-gar, Post Office Mauraniya Gandhi Nagar, Block Puranpur, Distt. Pilibhit. A no confi­dence motion was presented to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Pilibhit (DPRO) to convene a meeting. The notice dated 2.11.2007 was signed by 1189 electors of the Gaon Sabha. The DPRO cancelled the no­tice on 15.11.2007 on a report of the District Horticulture Officer, who found that on being called to verify, 913 persons in the village did not appear to verify their signa­tures and thumb impressions and that 16 persons expressed their doubts over the signatures/ thumb impressions of other electors. The order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 63027 of 2007. This Court rely­ing upon Mathura Prasad Titvari v. Asstt. District Panchayat Raj Officer 1967 RD 17 (FB) Daya Shankar v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, 1968 ALJ 753 and Ban-shoo v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, jaunpur, 1986 UPLBEC 429 held that it was not necessary to call the electors in a meeting for verification of signatures, virtually preempting meeting to consider no confidence motion for verify­ing their signatures and thumb impres­sions. It was not necessary that all the electors would be present on any day or at any particular time. While allowing the writ petition on 28.1.2008 and setting aside the order dated 15.11.2007 it was found that since no effective relief could be given as 30 days has expired, the District Panchayat Raj Officer may consider a fresh notice to call a meeting for considering no confidence motion against the Pradhan in accordance with law.
(3.) THE District Panchayat Raj Officer convened a fresh meeting to be held on 17.3.2008 and appointed a Chairman to preside over the meeting. The notice dated 29.2.2008 fixed an agenda in which the meeting was to take place between 10.00 to 12.00 and voting between 12.00 to 5.00 p.m. on the same day.;