IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 265 of 2011 Dhana Devi ….…… Appellant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents Mr. Tarun P.S. Takuli, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State / respondents. Date of Judgment: 17.11.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) On 5th October, 2011, Village Development Officer issued a notice convening a meeting of the Gram Sabha on 17th October, 2011 for the purpose of consideration of a motion to remove the petitioner from the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Dafa. In the writ petition, the said notice has been assailed on the ground that the same does not give 15 clear days notice. The other ground is that the requisition for the motion, though is inappropriate, the same has been accepted without verification thereof. On the writ petition, a prayer for an interim order was made for stalling the said meeting. That having not been granted, the present appeal has been filed. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the said Act’) directs that at least 15 days previous notice shall be given, whereas in the instant case, the notice is less than 15 days. 3. Sub Section (1) of Section 14 of the said Act provides that Gram Sabha may at a meeting specially convened for the purpose and of which at least 15 days previous notice shall be given, remove the Pradhan by a majority of two-thirds of the members of the Gram Sabha present and voting. The said sub-Section, therefore, talks about convening of a meeting 2 and giving of a notice, which shall be at least 15 days prior to convening of the meeting; who shall give this notice, has not been mentioned. 4. Section 3 of the said Act authorizes the State Government to establish a Gram Sabha for a village or group of villages by such name as may be specified, and for that purpose, requires the State Government to issue a notification. Clause (g) of Section 2 of the said Act defines “Gram Sabha”. It says that Gram Sabha means a body established under Section 3 of the Act, consisting of persons registered in the electoral rolls relating to a village comprised within the area of a Gram Panchayat. Therefore, Gram Sabha, referred to in Section 14 of the said Act, would be those persons registered in the electoral rolls relating to the village(s), comprised within the area of Gram Panchayat, Dafa. Gram Sabha, consisting of such large number of people, is required to convene the meeting and to give notice, as mentioned in Section 14 of the said Act. In order to ensure that such a meeting can be convened conveniently and an appropriate notice, as mentioned therein, can be given, the State Government, in exercise of its power under Section 110 of the said Act, has made Rules and in Rule 33-B thereof has prescribed the modus operandi. It has directed, in sub-Rule (1), how notice, referred to in Section 14 of the said Act, should be given. In sub-Rule (2), District Panchayat Raj Officer has been authorized to convene the meeting once a notice, as contemplated in sub-Rule (1), is received and the officer concerned is satisfied as regards the genuineness of the signatures of the members signing the notice. Therefore, notice, contemplated in Section 14 of the said Act, is the notice as mentioned in sub-Rule (1) of Rule 33-B of the Rules, whereas convening of the meeting, as mentioned in Section 14 of the said Act, has been dealt with in sub-Rule (2) of Rule 33-B of the Rules. 5. No doubt, the person authorized by sub-Rule (2) of Rule 33-B can convene a meeting, as contemplated in Section 14 of the said Act, but not before 15 days of receipt of the notice mentioned in sub-Rule (1) of Rule 33- B, that being the mandate of sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the said Act. The fact remains that in the instant case, there is no dispute that the notice in 3 question was received much prior to 15 days from the date the Gram Sabha has been convened. 6. In the circumstances, question of grant of any interim order, on the ground that by a notice dated 5th October, 2011, the meeting of the Gram Sabha was convened on 17th October, 2011, did never arise. 7. Until such time it is established on evidence brought on record that an action on the part of a Government officer, in discharge of governmental duty, was inappropriate, law requires the Court to presume that the act done by the said Government officer is appropriate and, accordingly, merely on the allegation of the appellant that the signatures were not verified, contrary to what had been held out by the Government officer concerned, no interim order can be issued. 8. We, accordingly, find no reason to hold that the learned Judge, for no just reason, refused to grant interim order. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 17.11.2011 17.11.2011 Amit