Allahabad High Court
Bankey Lal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. ... on 15 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)3UPLBEC1590, 1998 A I H C 1343, (1998) REVDEC 403, (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1590, 1997 ALL CJ 884, (1997) 30 ALL LR 718
Author: M. Katju
Bench: M. Katju
JUDGMENT R. Dayal, J.
1. These special appeals involve common question of law and arise from the judgments of a learned Single Judge whereby writ petitions filed by the appellants to challenge no-confidence proceedings initiated against them as Pradhans of Gram Panchayats were dismissed, placing reliance on the judgment dated 7-5-1997 passed in writ petition No. 14191 of 1991, Smt. Ram Beti v. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Budaun and Ors. [Reported in (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1583].
2. We have heard Sri N. C Rajvanshi and Sri R. C. Singh, Advocates, for the appellants and Sri Pradeep Gupta, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, and Shri H. P. Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that whereas under Section 11-B of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (here-in-after referred to as the Act). Pradhan is to be elected by all the persons registered in the electoral rolls far the territorial constituencies of the Panchayat area from amongst themselves, Section 14 as amended in 1994 provides for removal of a duly elected Pradhan by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting of the Gram Panchayat, According to the learned counsel, provision for removal by Gram Panchayat which consists of only a few persons is against democratic principles and irrational and as such Section 14 of the Act should be declared as ultra vires of the Constitution. On the other hand, Sri Pradeep Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the matter stands concluded by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Rae Bareilly and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2042: (1993) 1 UPLBEC 35 (SC) where similar contention with respect to U.P. Municipalities Act repelled.
4. Clause 5 (a) Article 243C of the Constitution provides that the Chairman of a Panchayat at the village level shall be elected in such manner as the legislature of a State may, by law provide. Sub-section (1) of Section 11-B of the Act says that Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat shall be elected by the persons registered in the electoral roils for the territorial constituencies of the Panchayat area from amongst themselves. Section 14 (1) of the Act empowers the Gram Panchayat to remove the Pradhan at a meeting specially convened for the purpose and of which at least 15 day's previous notice has been given, by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting. Under Section 12 (2), a member of Gram Panchayat is to be elected by the persons registered in the electoral rolls of the territorial constituency of the Gram Panchayat from amongst themselves. Under Section 12 (1) (c) a Gram Panchayat is to consist of a Pradhan and in the case of a Panchayat area having a population of-
(i) one thousand, nine members ;
(ii) more than one thousand but not more than two thousand eleven members ;
(iii) more than two thousand but not more than three thousand thirteen members ; or
(iv) more than three thousand, fifteen members.
5. Thus, whereas a Pradhan is to be elected by all persons registered in the electoral rolls of territorial constituencies of a Panchayat area he is removable under Section 14 not by the entire electorate but their representatives who are the members of Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that it is irrational that holder of a public office who is elected by all persons registered in the electoral rolls should be removable by a much smaller body. We see no merit in the submission. The Supreme Court has observed in Mohan Lal Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Rae Bareilly (Supra) that vote of no-confidence against elected representative is a direct check flowing from accountability and a provision in a statute for recall of an elected representative has to be tested not on general or vague notions but on practical possibility and electoral feasibility of entrusting the power of recall to a body which is representative in character and is capable of projecting views of the electorate. It was further observed that purpose of Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act which deals with no-confidence motion against President of a Municipality is to remove elected representative who has lost confidence of the body which elected him. It is made clear that it may be by people themselves or they may entrust their power through legislation to their representatives. "A President who is elected by the entire electorate" when removed by such members of the Board who have also been elected by the people is in fact removal by the electorate itself. Such provision neither violates the spirit nor purpose of recall of an elected representative. Rather ensures removal by a responsible body." The Supreme Court has thus upheld the Constitutional validity of a statutory provision providing for removal of President who has been elected by the entire body of electors by a much smaller body of persons who are the representatives of the electorate. The ratio of this authority is fully applicable to the present issue Accordingly, we up-hold the validity of Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (as amended by U.P. Act No. 9 of 1994).
6. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no orders as to costs.