Court No. - 30 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7021 of 2019 Petitioner :- Saroj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Tandon,Rahul Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner today, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that within a short period of six months this is the forth notice for carrying out no confidence motion. He submits that on earlier occasion either notice was withdrawn or proceedings were dropped as the notice on verification or on statement of the persons who have presented the no confidence motion, it was found that some of the members of the gaon sabha were either dead or were not available and some of the signatures were found forged/could not be verified. He further stated that for this reason it was found that one and a half members of the gaon sabha have not signed the motion. He submits that now while issuing this notice a different place for consideration of the no confidence motion has been given, whereas at that place there where is every possibility of communal rights. Placing reliance on Rule 31 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj, Rules 1947, he submits that ordinarily meeting of Gaon sabha and of Gram Panchayat shall be held in the village where gaon sabha is located. He submits that even if there is no restriction of meeting being held at some other place, however for fixing a different place reason must have been assigned by the authorities concerned, particularly every time on earlier occasion meeting was scheduled to be held as Primary School, Kumariya Jubla. There was not even an allegation of problem of security on that place and now this place of majara mahdood kalmi is about 3 km. away.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this time no inquiry has been conducted for the purpose of verification of signatures in the light of Rule 33-B of the Rules U.P. Panchyat Raj, Rule 1947.
Learned Standing counsel submits that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit as only legal question is involved. He further submits that on merit no interference is warranted in the impugned order inasmuch as there is no restriction on fixing a different place even if Rule 31 of U.P. Panchyat Raj, Rule 1947 is taken into consideration. He however could not dispute the fact that there appears that no compliance of Rule 33-B of the Rules.
In view of the aforesaid discussion this Court is of the view that once no confidence motion is fixed on a place different from the place which was fixed for consideration of such motion on earlier three occasions but the meeting did not take place and there was no indication of any problem of security, the bald reason assigned without indicating the background of the facts, does not appears to be correct. The compliance of Rule 33-B of the Rule 1947 is also not reflected from the notice.
Accordingly the impugned notice dated 11.02.2019 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed.
With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Ujjawal