Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 706 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ajab Narayan Respondent :- Smt. Kewala Singh And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Kshetresh Chandra Shukla,Shyam Shankar Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C,P.C. Pathak Hon'ble Ferdino Inacio Rebello,Chief Justice Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned
Single Judge whereby the appointment of the Village Pradhan has been
set aside and directions have been issued to the District Magistrate to
carrying out the exercise once again under the provisions of Section
12-J of the U.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
The facts are that the elected Pradhan expired on 6.4.2010 and on
24.4.2010 one person was nominated as Pradhan who subsequently left
the office. According to the learned counsel for the private respondents
the said person was not even a Member of the Gram Sabha.
The appellant as per record came to be nominated on 3.5.2010 and the
District Magistrate convened a meeting of the Gram Sabha in which the
members were put to notice on 16.5.2010. Notice was issued on the
very same day. The contesting respondent disputes that she had not
received the notice and also she had no knowledge of the meeting.
However, eight persons including the appellant have signed the minutes
of the meeting and out of the eight persons, seven members supported
the candidature of the appellant.
It appears that earlier some of the Members of the Gram Sabha had
given affidavits supporting the respondent. These affidavits are part of
the record and are dated 11.5.2010 and 12.5.2010.
It is no doubt that this Court has taken a view that while nominating a
Pradhan caused by the death or any other circumstance the view of the
elected members of the Gram Sabha has to be taken into consideration.
This was strictly not followed on the nomination of the appellant herein.
However, we find post facto, on ratification in the meeting held on
16.5.2010, at least seven members of the ten have supported the
appellant herein. The interpretation of the Division Bench in the case of
Udaivir Versus State Election Commission 2009 (106) RD 151 is to
allow the members to express their view for a choice of the Pradhan
when the authority proceeds to install somebody in office. The majority
view in the present case has been expressed within a close proximity of
time confirming the nomination. The same substantially conforms to the
real intent of the ratio of the judgment referred to herein above.
Considering the participation and non-complaint about the said minutes
by the members who supported the motion the learned Single Judge
ought not to have exercised the extra ordinary jurisdiction in the petition
as the meeting was convened and the views of the majority was taken.
In our opinion considering the ratification it was a fit case where the
learned Single Judge should have declined to exercise his discretion.
In the light of the above the impugned judgment and order dated
25.5.2010 is set aside and appointment of the appellant is upheld.
The special appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(A.P.Sahi,J.) (F.I.Rebello,CJ)
Order Date :- 4.8.2010
mna