MEERA DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner- Smt. Meera Devi, elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Jalalpur, Vikas Khand Majhawan, District Mirzapur in the last election held in April 1995, has filed the present petition, seeking the relief of quashing the entire proceeding of motion of no-confidence dated 24-8-1997, held in pursuance of the order dated 2-8-1997 of the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Mirzapur under Section 14 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (In short the 'Act') read with Rule 33-B of the Rules made under the Act.

(2.) Concededly, the concerned Gram Panchayat is a body consisting of 13 elected members to the exclusion of the petitioner. All the elected members were present in the meeting and theyexercised the right to vote on the motion of no-confidence, brought to bear against the petitioner. The petitioner was kept at bay from voting. Nine out of thirteen voted in favour and four against the motion of no-confidence. As a result, the petitioner stood expelled from her office as Pradhan. Sri Sanjai Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner circumscribed his contentions to only two points in support of the relief claimed in the writ petition; first, that the petitioner was entitled to cast her vote in the meeting by virtue of her being a member of the Gram Panchayat in view of Sec. 12(6) of the Act. The learned counsel urged that the removalof the petitioner by motion of no confidence is vitiated since she was not permitted to cast her vote.The second point canvassed by the learned counsel was that in case the requisite two-thirds of the members presenting and voting, falls short by any fraction of vote, then in that event, the fraction will have to be rounded up to the nearest whole number for the purposes of determining the requisite majority of two-thirds.

(3.) In so far as first submission advanced across the bar is concerned, it has been held in Raj Singh v. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Muzaffarnagar, 1997 Rev Dec 429 that by virtue of sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act as it stands substituted by U. P. Act 9 of 1994, a Pradhan shall be deemed to be a member of the Gram Panchayat of which he/she happens to be the Pradhan and that being the position, the Pradhan is entitled to participate in the meeting convened for the purposes of discussion and voting on the motion of no-confidence brought against him/her under Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 33-B of the Rules. It may usefully be stated here that in Section 12(11) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, as it stood before its substitution by U. P. Act 9 of 1994, there was a clear stipulation that Pradhan would not be deemed to be the member of the Gram Panchayat and would not be entitled to vote (except in the case of motion of resolution before the Gram Panchayat but excluding any election). In the case of motion of resolution before the Gram Panchayat, the Pradhan had, under the old provision, a casting vote in a situation of equality of votes and in no other case. But after its amendment by U. P. Act No. 9 of 1994, Section 12(6) clearly postulates that Pradhan shall be deemed to be a member of the Gram Panchayat and therefore, in the absence of any express or implied provisions taking away the right of Pradhan as a member of the Gram Panchayat to cast his/her vote in the meeting of Gram Panchayat, the Pradhan would have a right to cast his/her vote. Pertinently it may be observed that a candidate for office of Pradhan has every right to cast his/her vote as an elector in his own favour and if he/she is a member of the Gram Panchayat why cannot he/she exercise her franchise as a member at the no confidence meeting in the absence of any expressed prohibition contained in the Act? No principle was suggested nor could I envision any on the basis of which a Pradhan could be denied of any of his/her rights as a member of the Gram Panchayat. The respondents were not justified in balking the petitioner of her right to cast vote in the impugned meeting convened for discussion on the motion of no-confidence brought against her. The result of the voting and motion of no-confidence may be impaired in case it is found that by sub-joining the vote of the petitioner to the total number of votes polled against motion, it is found that votes polled in favour of the motion, falls short of two-thirds majority of the members present and voting and, in that eventuality, the motion would be deemed to have failed.