VINEET SARAN,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and hve perused the record. Sri P.C. Singh, learned counsel for the Caveator has also been heard.
(2.) ON the elected Pradhan of the village having resigned, the District Magistrate vide his order dated 25.7.2009 nominated the petitioner under Section 12-J of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act to perform the entire work of Gram Pradhan. Thereafter, on a complaint having been filed by 7 out of 10 elected members of the Gram Panchayat, the District Magistrate required the Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari to enquire into the matter. On enquiry, it was found that despite there being no meeting of the Gram Panchayat, the Gram Panchayat Adhikari of the village had written to the District Magistrate that there was resolution of the Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner, on which basis the earlier order dated 25.7.2009 had been passed by the District Magistrate. Thus by the impugned order dated 11.8.2009, the District Panchayat Raj Officer has directed the Sahayak Vikas Adhikari (Panchayat) to call the meeting of the Gram Panchayat in wihch they may elect a Pradhan and such resolution may be provided to the authorities for passing appropriate orders. In view of the fact that the petitioner is not a duly elected Gram Pradhan and has merely been nominated by the District Magistrate, the order passed for getting the proper election of the Pradhan in the meeting of the Gram Panchayat under the Presidentship of Sahayak Vikas Adhikari (Panchayat) cannnot be said to be unjustified. By the said order, all that the District Panchayat Raj Officer is wanting to do is to get a proper person nominated as Gram Pradhan in whose favour a valid resolution of the Gram Panchayat is passed. In case if the petitioner has majority of members in his favour, he should not have any grievance? and on the contrary if the petitioner does not have majority of members of the Gram Panchayat in his favour, he would not have any right to continue as Gram Pradhan. As such, no interference is called for with the order impugned in this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.;