Full Judgment
Janardan Sahai, J.
1. Mewati Devi respondent No. 4, is the elected Pradhan. A notice of intention to bring a motion of no-confidence against her was presented before the District Panchayat Raj Officer on 6.9.2007. The District Panchayat Raj Officer passed an order dated 11.9.2007 convening the meeting of the Gaon Sabha for 3.10.2007 for considering the motion. It is stated by the Pradhan respondent No. 4 that a copy of the notice of intention under the Right to Information Act was obtained by her on 29.9.2007. She filed objections on 29.9.2007 itself challenging the signatures of a large number of persons on the notice of intention. The District Panchayat Raj Officer passed an order on 29.9.2007 for an enquiry. A report was submitted on 1.10.2007 by the Assistant Block Development Officer to the effect that the signatures of 52 persons were farzi. The District Panchayat Raj Officer it is stated also compared the signatures and found that there were some other persons also whose signatures were farzi. On the basis of the enquiry report made by the Assistant Block Development Officer and the enquiry, the District Panchayat Raj Officer passed an order on 2.10.2007 cancelling the order dated 11.9.2007. Against this order dated 2.10.2007, the present writ petition has been filed by Ram Kesh one of the persons who had presented the notice of intention.
2. I have heard Sri Shashi Nandan senior counsel assisted by Sri R.P. Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.N. Saxena, senior counsel assisted by Sri S.P. Shukla, counsel for respondent No. 4.
3. It was submitted by Sri Shashi Nandan that no enquiry regarding the genuineness of the signatures is permissible under Rule 33B of. the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules and all that the Rule requires is the satisfaction of the District Panchayat Raj Officer about the genuineness of the signatures of not less than half the members of the Gaon Sabha which is to be arrived at without an enquiry and on the basis of the notice and the affidavits of the persons who have presented the notice. It is submitted that the law does not even contemplate a recital of the satisfaction in the order convening the meeting.
4. Reliance is placed upon Motil Lal v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1997 (2) UPLBEC 1245, in which it has been held that it is not necessary that the order of the District Panchayat Raj Officer should even contain a recital that he has satisfied himself regarding the genuineness of the signatures. The want of recital however would in certain cases affect placement of the burden of proof. A case is an authority for what it decides. The question whether an enquiry can be held has not been considered in this case. In Munshi Lal v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, (Prescribed Authority), Hardoi and Anr. 1984 UPLBEC 569, it has been held that the law does not contemplate any enquiry into genuineness of the signatures on the notice of intention to bring a no-confidence motion. In my opinion, all that the observations in Munshi Lal's case, that the law does not contemplate an enquiry mean is that the enquiry is not a necessary step required to be taken under the law and not that no enquiry can at all be held. A Division Bench of this Court in Banshi v. District Panchayat Raj Officer 1986 ALJ 1143, has held relying upon the Full Bench case of Mathura Prasad Tewari v. Assistant District Panchayat Officer 1966 ALJ 612, that the power of the prescribed authority of holding an enquiry is implicit in his power to convene the meeting. Before convening the meeting the District Panchayat Raj Officer has to be satisfied that the notice of intention has been signed by not less than half the members of the Gaon Sabha. For arriving at that satisfaction he may or he may not in his discretion hold an enquiry.
5. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 33B is quoted below:
33B. 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 atleast 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 the notice the District Panchayat Raj Officer shall satisfy himself regarding genuineness of the signatures of the members signing the notice.
6. The main submission of the petitioner's counsel is that Rule 33B contains the words 'before proceeding further on the notice', which according to him mean that the exercise regarding satisfaction has to be completed before passing an order fixing a date of the meeting and not after a date has been fixed convening the meeting. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon in Abdul Sattar v. Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari 1998 RD Supp 245, in which it was held that the purpose of requiring signatures on the notice is precautionary so that a meeting altogether futile may not be convened. The words 'before proceeding further on the notice' only cast a duty upon the District Panchayat Raj Officer to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the signatures even at the stage before fixing a date for the meeting but these are not words of restriction taking away the power of the District Panchayat Raj Officer to hold an enquiry after the date of the meeting has been fixed. If the rule is interpreted to mean that after a date for meeting has been fixed, the District Panchayat Raj Officer becomes powerless to hold an enquiry the very purpose of the rule requiring satisfaction of the District Panchayat Raj Officer regarding genuineness of the signatures on the notice may fail that purpose being to avoid altogether futile meeting being held. At the stage when a notice of intention is presented and before date of the meeting has been fixed the only material before the District Panchayat Raj Officer would ordinarily be the required affidavits of the 5 persons who present the notice and the notice of intention itself purporting to bear the signatures of the members. If the District Panchayat Raj Officer gets Information at that stage that some signatures on the notice are forged he would be able to hold an enquiry at that stage but it is unlikely that there would be any objection at that stage because the fact that a notice has been presented and the signatures thereon are farzi would not be known to the members of the Gaon Sabha or to the Pradhan at that stage and the Pradhan would not be in a position to file objections at that stage. It is after the order of the District Panchayat Raj Officer for convening a meeting would a notice be issued and the Pradhan would then be in a position to examine the notice to see how many signatures thereon are farzi and to dispute the genuineness of the signatures and file objections. The interpretation of Sri Shashi Nandan that the Rule prohibits the District Panchayat Raj Officer from holding enquiry after he has fixed the date for holding the meeting cannot be accepted.
7. On facts the District Panchayat Raj Officer has found that the notice of intention did not bear the genuine signatures of not less than the half the members of the Gaon Sabha. The discretion exercised by the District Panchayat Raj Officer is not perverse. The petition therefore, fails. It is however open to the petitioner or other persons to bring a fresh notice of intention and if that is in accordance with law the District Panchayat Raj Officer shall convene a meeting of the Gaon Sabha.
8. Dismissed.