Ashiq Ali vs State of TIP. and Others

Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri Ashish Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Verma for opposite party No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

It has been submitted that on the demise of the Pradhan the opposite party No. 4 has been appointed as the temporary Pradhan by the District Magistrate. This exercise has not been done in accordance with law. No meeting of the members has been conducted. This order is non-speaking and cryptic. The petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment Push pendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (110) RD 46 (HC) which says as under:

From a perusal of the provisions mentioned here above, we are of the considered opinion that sections 12-H and 12-J have to be read harmoniously. Section 12-H deals with the permanent vacancy which may occur by resignation or otherwise on the post of Pradhan. It provides for filling up the vacancy by way of election as provided under sections 11-B and section 12 of the Act where the residual term is more than six months. However, till the elections are held, a temporary arrangement has to be made taking recourse to the provisions of section 12-J of the Act and the Prescribed Authority has been given power to nominate a Gram Pradhan to discharge the duty of the Pradhan. The provisions of section 12-J came up for consideration before a Division Bench in the case of Udaivir (supra) and this Court has held that the Prescribed Authority has to act in accordance with the majority opinion of the Members of the concerned Gram Panchayat while nominating the officiating Pradhan. The law laid down in the aforesaid case is in consonance with the spirit of the provisions of Chapter IX inserted in our Constitution by the Constitution of Panchayats at the village, empowering the villagers to manage their affairs at the local level themselves. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade us to take a different view. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Udai Veer (supra). In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was right in directing the District Magistrate to ascertain the wishes of the Members of the Gram Panchayat before nominating any person on officiating basis to discharge the duties and functions of the Gram Pradhan.

The order is accordingly set aside.

The District Magistrate is at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of sections 12J(2) of the Panchayat Raj Act afresh.

With the above observation, writ petition is finally disposed of.