JUDGMENT Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. Heard Shri Umesh Narain Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri O.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 33B and Rule 33D 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.
3. Shri Jawahar Lal was elected as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Ram Nagar, 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 Tiwari v. Asstt. District Panchavat Raj Officer 1966 ALJ 672 (FB); Daya Shankar v. District Panchayat Raj Officer. 1968 AL.T 753 and Banshoo v. District Panchayat Raj Officer. Jaunpur. 1986 UPLBEC 429 held that it was not necessary to call the electors in a meting 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.
4. 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.
5. There is a dispute between the parties regarding the proceedings of the meeting held on 17.3.2008. Shri Ram Chandra Lal, the Chairman of the meeting made a record of the meeting in the proceeding register. He recorded that between 10.00 to 12.00 a.m. the signatures of 320 persons could be taken, and that the quorum could be completed somehow by 4.30 p.m. during which time the proceedings were disturbed by the opposite parties repeatedly and that inspite of the fact that quorum was not complete the polling process started at 5.00 p.m. Once again the proceedings were disturbed at 6.20 p.m. There was so much pandemonium created by the opposite party that he had to stop the election process for about half an hour. In between the Station Officer, P.S. Hazara was called and the election process started again. A generator was brought to provide light. On 7.30 p.m. once again the voting had to stop. The opposite parties estopped the generator and surrounded the ballot box. By that time it was too dark on which S.O. Hazara took the ballot box under his security. Thereafter again there was disturbance. The polling could start after a lot of persuasion and once again after 35 minutes there was 'hangama' and then again polling had to stop. The persons opposed to Pradhan were shouting slogans and when it was found that there may be violence on the spot the polling had to be stopped. In the end he wrote that he cancelled the polling and the election process, which was held under coercion.
6. The District Panchayat Raj Officer considered the report and the record, and found that the proceeding register was signed by 858 electors of the Gaon Sabha. The polling started at 5.00 p.m. Intead of canceling the proceedings the Chairman continued with the proceedings, which should have been stopped. He allowed the process to continue illegally and in the polling out of 417 persons 347 persons voted in favour of the no confidence motion, 60 in favour of the Pradhan, and 10 votes were cancelled. The DPRO by order dated 24.3.2007 held that the election proceedings were defective and illegal, and cancelled the entire proceedings. By a fresh order dated 25.3.2008 he has called the meeting to be held again on 12th April, 2008 giving rise to Writ Petition No. 17526 of 2008.
7. In Writ Petition No. 18339 of 2008 Shri Surya Prakash Dwivedi has prayed for quashing the order dated 25.3.2008 passed by the DPRO, Pilibhit again convening the meeting on the ground that the resolution for no confidence was carried out on March 17th, 2008.
8. Shri Umesh Narain Sharma, learned Counsel for the elected Pradhan submits that the quorum was not complete and thus in view of Section 14(3) of the Act a fresh meeting cannot be called within one year of the date of the previous meeting. He further submits that the motion was not carried out as the persons, who did not vote in the meeting will not be counted to be present and voting. He has relied upon the judgments in D. Jayaraman v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. : Mange Ram v. District Panchavat Rai Officer. Saharanpur AIR 1997 AWC 405 (FB); Lily Thoma v. Speaker. Lok Sabha and Ors. and Ram Govind Tripathi v. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Ors. (2005) 1 UPLBEC 74 in submitting that to find out as to whether the resolution was passed by 2/3rd majority, only the members, who were physically present at the time of voting alone could be taken into account.
9. Shri Ravi Kiran Jain on the other hand submits that the quorum was complete with 858 signatures and that if only 417 have caste their vote, with the majority namely 349 voted in favour of no confidence motion, the motion should be taken to be carried, and thus no fresh meeting could be called. He would submit that DPRO has not considered the report in correct perspective and that the electors had expressed their desire in a process of voting, which should not be frustrated by calling a fresh meeting.
10. The Gram Pradhan holds an elected office. He can be removed by the members of the Gram Sabha by a majority of 2/3rd of the members present and voting with atleast 15 previous day's notice. The procedure for holding the meeting is provided under Rule 33B and 33D of the Rules of 1947, which provides for a quorum of atleast 1/3rd of the electors of the Gaon Sabha, and the resolution to be passed by majority of 2/3rd of the members present and voting. The detailed procedure of holding the meeting provided in the rules secures the rights of the electors to express their wishes after a discussion to be held in a fair and peaceful manner. The law prescribed the choice of the electors to be ascertained after due notice and discussion. Where a meeting is marred by pandemonium and violence in which the Chairman of the meeting is illegally confined for hours and is not allowed to preside and that police had to be called to maintain peace and there was further disturbance again and again, which continued from 10.00 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. and there was sloganeering and threats to Chairman, who had to ultimately cancel the proceedings, the meeting cannot be said to have been held in accordance with law. There was no question of counting heads in such a meeting to find out whether the quorum was complete or to ascertain the value of votes, which were cast in such an atmosphere.
11. In order to hold a free and fair election meeting, the Chairman of the meeting should make adequate arrangements for maintaining law and order, and peace. Where the meeting has been affected by disturbance from the beginning and was repeatedly interrupted by using violence and slogan shouting, the villagers cannot be said to have discussed or freely expressed their desire. The narration of the events, which took place beginning from 10.00 a.m. till 7.30 p.m. would demonstrate that virtually no meeting was held. The persons of both sides were having free way in the proceedings, interrupting the proceedings in which the Chairman was kept hostage for long hours. Such a meting cannot be said to be a valid meeting and that no attempt should be made to find out the result of such meeting. The DPRO has not committed any error in law in holding that such meeting should have been immediately estopped by the Presiding Officer and that he should not have undertaken the exercise of voting to find out the wishes of an uncontrolled and violent mob.
12. I do not find any error of law in the impugned orders. Both the writ petitions are dismissed.
The copies of the order be given to learned Counsel for the parties today on payment of usual charges.