JUDGMENT Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Girish Kumar Singh appears for contesting respondent. Learned Standing Counsel appears for state-respondents.
2. The petitioner along with four other members of the Gram Sabha, Ram Nagar, presented a motion to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Pilibhit to convene a meeting to consider a no confidence motion' vide notice dated 2.11.2007 signed by 1189 members of Gaon Sabha. The District Panchayat Raj Officer nominated the District Horticulture Officer, Pilibhit to verify these signatures. He made a proclamation by beat of drums in the village on 12.11.2007 calling the villagers to assemble on 14.11.2007 for verifying the signatures. The District Horticulture Officer found that 913 persons/villagers did not appear to verify their signatures and thumb impressions, and that 16 persons present expressed their doubts over the signatures/thumb impressions. On the next day, on 15.11.2007, on receiving the report, the District Panchayat Raj Officer found that the notice was not verified and cancelled the same.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that five members presenting the notice, affirmed in their affidavits and verified the signatures/thumb impression on the notice. The law does not prescribed for any specific procedure under the Rules for verification. The subjective satisfaction of the Pre scribed Authority, and his discretion, however, must be used in a reasonable manner to verify the signature/thumb impression on the notice. The procedure adopted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer was neither reasonable nor fair and over reaches the requirement prescribed in law.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submit that the District Panchayat Raj Officer directed the District Horticulture Officer, and that the notice by bit of drum to verify the signatures/thumb impression on the notice of 'no confidence motion' was a proper procedure. According to him there was nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the Prescribed Authority.
5. In the Full Bench case of Mathura Prasad Tewari v. Assistant District Panchayat Raj Officer 1966 ALJ 672 (FB) Hon. M.C. Desai, C.J., observed as follows:
The most that can be said is that the matter is in the discretion of the Prescribed Authority, if a complain is made to it that material number of signatures is invalid, it may, in its discretion, make enquiry or refuse to make it.
6. Similar 2 as the view taken by Hon'ble Satish Chandra, J. as he then was, in Daya Shankar v. District Panchayat Raj Officer 1968 ALJ 753:
The Prescribed Authority was not obliged by law to make an enquiry into the genuineness or otherwise of the signatures appended to the notice. The enquiry directed to be conducted in the instant case was informal for the personal satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority for which the Pradhan or other members of the Gaon Sabha have no concern or interest.
7. A Division Bench of this Court in Banshoo v. District Panchayat Rai Officer, Jaunpur 1986 UPLBEC 429 approved the decision and held that it was the discretion of the Prescribed Authority to hold or not to hold the enquiry would be justified depending upon the facts of the case, and even the enquiry is to be made, it should not be a long drawn enquiry so as to take it beyond the statutory period of thirty days as required by Rule 33-B of the Rules made under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
8. Since after the aforesaid decisions, Rules have been amended and that now Rule 33-B as amended by U.P. Panchayat Raj (Sixteenth Amendment) Rules, 2005 with effect from 4.3.2005 provides as follows:
33-B. Procedure for removal of Pradhan.- (1) A written notice of the intention to move a motion for removal of the Pradhan under Section 14 of the Act shall be necessary. It shall be signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Gram Sabha and shall state the reasons for moving the motion and it shall be delivered in person by at least five members signing the notice to the District Panchayat Raj Officer. It shall also be necessary to certify the signatures of the other members signing the notice by all five members presenting the notice by furnishing their affidavit to this effect. Before proceeding further on notice the District Panchayat Rai Officer shall satisfy himself regarding genuineness of the signatures of the members signing the notice.
(2) The District Panchayat Raj Officer shall convene a meeting of the Gram Sabha, under Provisions of Section 14 of the Act, on a date and time of commencement of meeting to be fixed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice. The meeting shall be presided over by the District Panchayat Raj Officer or by the person authorised by him in writing in this behalf. If any other person is authorised to preside the meeting, he shall be supplied a copy of the electoral rolls of the Gram Sabha and all other papers relating to the motion by the District Panchayat Raj Officer. The Presiding Officer may take such clerical assistance for conducting the proceedings of the meeting for the consideration of the motion as he may deem necessary.
(3) The Presiding Officer shall read in the meeting, the notice received by him. He shall then allow the motion to be moved and discussed. The Presiding Officer shall not speak on the merit of the motion. Such discussion shall terminate on the expiry of two hours appointed for the commencement of the meeting unless it is concluded earlier. Then the motion shall be put to vote according to provisions of Rule 33-D.
9. After the amendment of the Rules with effect from 4.3.2005, the delivery of the notice by five members signing the notice, certifying the signatures of other members signing the notice is prima facie sufficient to satisfy the District Panchayat Raj Officer regarding genuineness of the signatures of the members signing the notice. He may hold an enquiry, the manner of which is not prescribed, to satisfy himself, with regard to the genuineness and number of signatures on the notice. He may also refuse to make an enquiry in this regard. The enquiry, however, should not be so elaborate so as to defeat the very object of the notice. The law does not require the enquiry officer to summon each and every signatory or to knock on their door, or even to ask them to assemble and to verify the signatures/thumb impressions. The enquiry should not be delayed or deferred giving an opportunity to the elected Pradhan to either withhold the members from attending the proceedings or to manipulate to defeat the motion. The enquiry also should not be extended so that the members are not provided with 15 clear days to consider the motion.
10. In the present case the calling of the meeting by beat of drums in the village and thereafter asking the persons to assemble to verify their signatures virtually pre-empted the 'no confidence motion'. It was not necessary to call for the members who had signed or put their thumb impressions. They may not be present on that date or at any particular time to be choosen by the enquiry officer. It is not possible to assume that more than half of the members of village will be present in the village on any given time before the enquiry officer.
11. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 15.11.2007 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer is set aside. Now since the period of thirty days has expired, no effective relief can be given to the petitioner except by observing that the petitioner may give a fresh notice, call the meeting to consider the 'no confidence motion'. If and when such a meeting is called, the District Panchayat Raj Officer would hold the enquiry regarding the genuineness of the signatures/thumb impressions in accordance with law as explained in the judgment.