SINGH, CJ. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated April 27, 2004 rendered in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1015/2004. The facts leading to the appeal are as follows.
(2.) THE appellant herein was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Karera in January 2000. A written notice of intention to make the motion expressing want of confidence in the Sarpanch, signed by 14 persons out of 21 elected members including the UP- Sarpanch, was presented before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara on 16. 02. 2004 along with a copy of the letter requesting the competent authority to place the proposed motion before the Panchayat for consideration (Annex. P/1 to the writ petition ). On receipt of the written notice, the Chief Executive Officer directed the Additional Chief Executive Officer to submit report with regard to the identity of the persons who had signed and presented the motion. THE Chief Executive Officer by his order dated 20th of February 2004 (Annex. P/3 to the writ petition) convened the meeting of the Gram Panchayat for 4th march at 10 A. M. to consider the No Confidence Motion against the appellant. Aggrieved by the order dated 20th February 2004, the appellant filed a writ petition. In the writ petition, the appellant herein prayed that the order dated 20th of February 2004 (annex. P/3) be quashed and in case the motion if carried out against the appellant, the same may be declared null and void. During the pendency of the writ petition, the meeting was held and conducted by Tehsildar, Mandal, who was nominated by the Chief Executive Officer under Section 37 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short `the Act of 1994") to preside over the same. But the result of the No Confidence Motion was not declared in consonance with the directions of the learned Single Judge dated 3rd March 2004 and the same was kept in a sealed cover. The learned Single Judge did not find any flaw in the proceedings which were initiated under Section 37 of the Act for consideration of No Confidence Motion against the appellant. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 27th April 2004. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge has filed the instant appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tehsildar, mandal prepared 22 ballot papers. According to the learned counsel, the format of the ballot papers was defective. the learned counsel submits that the format of the ballot paper was such that once the same was cast, it was an automatic vote in favour of the No. Confidence Motion. According to him it was a sort of pre-cast vote, the obsequies of which were merely performed by the appellant. In order to appreciate the submissions, it will be necessary to refer to the format of the ballot paper. The relevant part of the ballot paper is extracted in the order of the learned Single Judge, which may be set out for convenience of immediate reference. ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Favour (3) . . . Signature Against (x)" It is apparent from the format that a Member was required to put his signatures opposite the words "favour" or "against" according to his choice. In case a Member was voting in favour of the motion, he was required to put his signatures against the column, which was signified by the word "favour. " In case a Member was not voting for the motion, he was required to signify his option by putting his signatures opposite the word "against. " The Signs (3) and (x) were preceded by the words "favour" and "against", therefore, the sings were sufficiently explained by the words "favour' and "against". The learned counsel for the appellant argues that the Members must have been confused by the signs (3) & (x) and the option expressed by them was not an informed one. This argument is bereft of substance. since the signs were preceded by the explanatory words, namely "favour" and "against", therefore, there was no scope for confusion. The pre-cast theory put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellant does not hold water and the same cannot be sustained.
(3.) SHRI Chaudhary also submits that the Chief Executive officer was not empowered to delegate his authority to the Additional Chief Executive Officer for verification of the identities of the persons who has signed notice (annex. P/1 ). Before examining the merit of the contention, it needs to be pointed out that there is nothing on record to show that the Additional Chief Executive Officer checked the identity of the persons who were signatories to the aforesaid notice. It appears that the Chief Executive Officer without waiting for the response from the Additional Chief Executive Officer called the meeting for consideration of the No confidence Motion against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the procedure adopted by the Chief Executive Officer falls foul of Section 37 of the Act of 1994. His contention is that the verification ought to have been done by the Chief Executive Officer and he ought not to have delegated the function to the Additional Chief Executive Officer. With a view to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to refer Section 37 of the Act of 1994, which reads as follows:- " 37. Motion of no-confidence in chairpersons and deputy chairpersons.- (1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the chairperson or deputy chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the following sub-sections. (2) A written notice of intention to make the motion in such form as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one-third of the directly elected members of the Panchayati Raj Institution concerned together with a copy of the proposed motion, shall be delivered in person by any one of the members signing the notice to the competent authority. (3) The competent authority shall thereupon- (i) forward a copy of the notice, together with a copy of the proposed motion to the Panchayat in the case of a Sarpanch or Up-Sarpanch, to the Panchayat Semite, in the case of a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan and to the Zila Parishad in the case of a Pramukh or Up-Pramukh; (ii) convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion at the office of the concerned Panchayati Raj Institution on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-see. (1) was delivered him; and (iii) give to the members a notice of not less than seven clear days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed. (4) The competent authority shall preside at such meeting; Provided that if, he is unable to do so, the officer nominated by him shall so preside. (5) A meeting convened under sub-sec. (3) shall not be adjourned. (6) As soon as the meeting convened under this section commences, the presiding officer shall read to the members present, the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and declare it to be open for debate. (7) No debate on the motion under this section shall be adjourned. (8) Such debate shall automatically terminate on the expiration of two hours from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting, if it is not concluded earlier. On the conclusion of the debate or on the expiration of the said period of two hours, whichever, is earlier, the motion shall be put to vote. (9) The presiding officer shall not speak on the merits of the motion and he shall not be entitled to vote thereon. (10) A copy of the minutes of the meeting together with a copy of the motion and he result of the voting thereon, shall, on the termination of the meeting be forwarded forthwith by the presidng officer in the case of the chairperson or the deputy Chairperson- (a) of a Panchayat - to the concerned Panchayat and the Panchayat Samiti having jurisdiction on such Panchayat; (b) of a Panchayat Samiti - to the concerned Panchayat Samiti and to Zila Parishad having jurisdiction on such Panchayat Samiti; (c) of a Zila Parishad.- to the concerned Zila Parishad and the State Government. (11) if the motion is carried with the support of not less than two-thirds of the elected members of the concerned Panchayati Raj Institution- (a) the presiding officer shall cause the fact to be published by affixing a notice thereof on the notice board of the office of the concerned Panchayati Raj Institution and by notifying the same in the Official Gazette, and (b) the concerned chairperson or the deputy chairperson shall cease to hold office as such and vacate the office from the date on which the said notice is affixed on the notice board of the office aforesaid. (12) If the motion is not carried as aforesaid or if the meeting could not be held for want of a quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same chairperson or deputy chairperson shall be made until after the expiration of one year from the date of such meeting. (13) No notice of motion under this section shall be made within two years of the assumption of office by a chairperson or deputy chairperson. (14) The quorum to constitute a meeting for the consideration of a no-confidence motion against the chairperson or deputy chairperson shall be one-third of the total number of persons entitled to vote thereat. " Thus, it is clear from above the there is no requirement to check the identities of the Members signing the motion and the notice contemplated by sub-section (1)& (2) of Section 37 of the Act of 1994. In case, however, where there is a reason to believe that the motion & notice envisaged by Section 37 of the Act of 1994 have not been signed by actual member of the Panchayat and the signatures thereon are fake the rule of prudence requires the Chief Executive Officer himself or his nominee to check the identities of the persons signing the motion and the notice. But this approach proceeds from caution rather than statute. We cannot read into the statute a requirement to check the identities of the persons signing the motion and the notice, as the Court cannot add words to the statute. The Judges cannot take over the role of legislators. When the meaning of the Section is clear, no external aid is needed to construe the same. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Chief Executive Officer was personally required to verify the signatures of Members on the proposed notice and the could not have delegated the function to the Additional Chief Executive Officer, is not well-founded. In any event, there is nothing on record to show that the appellant in the debate on No Confidence motion or in a complaint to the Chief Executive Officer, even questioned the identities of the persons who signed Annex P. 1&2. Accordingly, the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant, fails and is hereby rejected. ;