The court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order constituting a Gaon Sabha committee. The judge found that the underlying meeting was held in the absence of fundamental illegality or forgery, noting the petitioner failed to raise the forgery ground in a timely representation.
The writ petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12041 of 2018
Petitioner :- Geeta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Murari Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Onkar Nath Mishra,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Two rejoinder affidavits filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bans Narayan Pathak-learned standing counsel appearing for respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 and Sri Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6.
The present writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.12.2017 and consequential order dated 30.12.2017 passed by respondent No.2 and for a mandamus directing respondent No.2 to take action for constituting Committee of Gaon Sabha of Gram Panchayat, Jairampur, Block Koyalsa, Tehsil Budhanpur, Azamgarh as per provision of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act by providing opportunity to all categories of candidates as per reservation policy.
Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the petition is being decided at the stage of admission.
In paragraph 2 of the impugned order it has been mentioned that the meeting dated 4.3.2016 was deferred due to lack of coram and was postponed to 23.3.2016 whereas it has been mentioned on the second page that the meeting was held on 12.3.2016 on which date this Committee have been constituted.
Submission is that no such meeting dated 12.3.2016 was in fact held and the Karyawahi register has been prepared by respondent no.6 with the help of his own persons and the impugned order is passed on an exparte inquiry report wherein petitioner was not provided any opportunity of hearing.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that in fact the date of the meeting has been wrongly mentioned as 23.3.2016 by mistake by the Block Development Officer in his report and therefore in paragraph 2 of the order the mistake has crept in whereas the correct date, as per the proceeding dated 4.3.2016, is 12.3.2016. Copy of the proceedings dated 4.3.2016 and 12.3.2016, have been placed on record as Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6. It is submitted that in such view of the matter there is no illegality in the impugned order and moreover an opportunity is still left open to the petitioner to move for reconsideration of the resolution by moving a representation/application submitted by 2/3rd of the members.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
On perusal of record I find that copy of the proceedings dated 4.3.2016 and 12.3.2016, which have been annexed as Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit clearly indicate that on 4.3.2016 next date was fixed 13.2.2016 and the persons present have made their signatures/thumb impressions. Further, in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the Staterespondents it has been categorically stated that in report of Block Development Officer in place of date 12.3.2016, the date 23.3.2016 has been written due to typing mistake, in fact the meeting was conducted on 12.3.2016 as scheduled and committees were formed.
It appears that earlier while arguing the matter a ground was taken that signatures of the elected members were forged and the committees were formed with forged and fraudulent signatures of the elected members of the Gram Sabha. I find that no such assertion has been made in the representation dated 13.3.2016, Annexure 2 to the writ petition.
In such view of the matter, there appears to be no illegality in the order impugned herein. The petition is at liberty to avail the remedy as left open in the impugned order.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.11.2018 AKJ
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order constitutioning the Committee of Gaon Sabha was passed without a hearing or on forged documents.
Geeta
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Birla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
