Heard Shri Prashant Singh Atal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Garg, learned counsel for the State and Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opposite party no. 6, who was elected to the office of Gram Pradhan sometime in 2015, was subsequently appointed as Assistant Teacher in a Primary School run by the Board of Basic Education, therefore, she has incurred the disqualification referred in Section 5-A(c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, as, she holds an office of profit under the State Government yet she is continuing to function as Gram Pradhan.
The opposite party no. 6 has been served notice but Shri Tusar Verma, Advocate whose name is printed in the cause list is not present to contest the matter.
The relief claimed in the writ petition is by way of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 to conduct second election to the office of Gram Pradhan of Village Panchayat- Ruknapur, Block Madhoganj, District- Hardoi. The other relief is also in the nature of mandamus to the opposite parties no. 1 to 5 to remove the opposite party no. 6 from the post of Village Pradhan.
The Court finds that under Section 95(1)(g)(v) one of the grounds for removal of a Pradhan is if he suffers from any disqualification mentioned in Clause- (a) to (m) of Section 5-A. Now, the case setup in the writ petition is referable to Section 5-A(c) though specific pleading in this regard has not been made nor a ground has been taken. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has moved any complaint in this regard as per Rule 3 of U.P Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules 1997. Moreover, the Court finds that under Section 6-A if any question arises as to whether a person has become subject to disqualification mentioned in Section 5-A or in Sub-Section 1 of Section 6, the question shall be referred to the Prescribed Authority for its decision and his decision shall, subject to the result of any appeal as may be prescribed, be final. The petitioner has not availed the aforesaid remedy, instead, he has approached this Court, however, without drawing any conclusive opinion in this regard the petitioner is given liberty to pursue the remedies as aforesaid in the matter.
The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.
Order Date :- 28.8.2019 R.K.P.