AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Goyal, J.—Admit.
As only a short question in involved, we proceed to dispose of the petition finally. The petitioner is a member of Gaon Sabha. He was one of the signatories to a ''no confidence motion'' of which notice was given against the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. That was given on 2981983. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, however, rejected the notice on 1691983 vide order Annexure1 on the ground that after enquiries he had found that several of the alleged signatories had not actually signed the notice.
The law does not contemplate any enquiry into the genuineness of the signatures. It is a common practice that many persons who first sign a notice of ''no confidence'' later disclaim their signatures under pressure from the other party. Thus, such an enquiry does not bring out the realities. The real position can only be as certained at secret voting on the motion, However, nothing can now be done in respect of the no confidence motion dated 29883, as the period during which a meeting to consider it could be held, has already expired. We, therefore, direct the opposite parties that if and when another notice of ''no confidence motion'' is given in accordance with rules, they will convene a meeting in accordance with law. The bar of one year will not apply because no meeting was held or convened in pursuance of the earlier notice. A writ in the nature of mandamus be issued accordingly.
(Ordered accordingly)