Ajab Narayan vs Smt. Kewala Singh and Others

Ferdino Inacio Rebello, C.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 v. 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.