Shiv Ram vs District Panchayat Raj Officer/Prescribed Authority and Others

K.N. Goyal, J.—Admit. As only a short question is 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 13-9-1983. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, however, rejected the notice on 24-9-1983 vide order Annexure-I on the ground that after enquiries he had found that several of the alleged signatories had not actually signed the notice. Thereafter by order Annexure No. 2 the new District Panchayat Raj Officer took the view that no fresh notice of ''no confidence motion'' shall be entertained before the expiry of one year from the date of the first notice. Against these orders, the Petitioner has come to this Court.

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 ascertained at secret voting on the motion. However, nothing can now be done in respect of the ''no confidence motion'' dated 13-9-1983 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.