# Hari Sagar Tiwari v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1490
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-10
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 31340 of 2017
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hari-sagar-tiwari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50124
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey, H S Tiwari,
Yogendra Nath Yadav

Writ Petition - for direction to the authority - to
allot the Fair Price Shop in pursuance of a
proposal of the Gaon Sabha which was in favour
of the petitioner - complaint - said proposal
was passed without confirmation and signature
of the Pradhan - court finds that, there is a
statutory provision for proceedings of the
meetings, a proposal which has not been
confirmed and signed by the Pradhan, it cannot
be said to be a valid proposal and the proposal
made therein would be valid - held, no direction
can be issued for taking decision in pursuance
of the said proposal which has not been
confirmed and singed by the Pradhan, therefore
it cannot be acted upon - consequently, writ
petition dismissed.
(Para - 10, 12)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

## Text

1490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24.02.2005 and six weeks from the date of
receipt of notice dated 12.08.2004 received
on 24.08.2004 will expire on 05.10.2004.
Therefore the period six weeks from the
date of receipt of notice under Section
12(2) had expired first on 5th October,
2004 and six months time form the date of
Collector's award had expired subsequently
i.e. on 24.02.2005.

Therefore, application of the
petitioner dated 20.09.2004 was well within
time within six weeks of notice under
Section 12(2), therefore, the impugned
order dated 27.04.2017 rejecting the
application
dated
20.09.2004
of
the
petitioner as time barred is absolutely
erroneous hence liable to be quashed.
Therefore, the same is quashed and the
respondent no.1 is directed to pass
appropriate order on the application dated
20.09.2004 of the petitioner under Section
18 of the ''Act, 1894' for referring his case
to Court for determination of compensation
treating the same within time.

14. Aforesaid exercise will be
completed by respondent no.1 within a
period of three months from the date of
receiving the copy of this order.

15. In view of above, present writ
petition is allowed. No order as to cost.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1490
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 31340 of 2017

Hari Sagar Tiwari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ambika Prasad Mishra, Dinesh Kumar Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey, H S Tiwari,
Yogendra Nath Yadav

Writ Petition - for direction to the authority - to
allot the Fair Price Shop in pursuance of a
proposal of the Gaon Sabha which was in favour
of the petitioner - complaint - said proposal
was passed without confirmation and signature
of the Pradhan - court finds that, there is a
statutory provision for proceedings of the
meetings, a proposal which has not been
confirmed and signed by the Pradhan, it cannot
be said to be a valid proposal and the proposal
made therein would be valid - held, no direction
can be issued for taking decision in pursuance
of the said proposal which has not been
confirmed and singed by the Pradhan, therefore
it cannot be acted upon - consequently, writ
petition dismissed.
(Para - 10, 12)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard, Shri Dinesh Kumar Ojha,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Ajay Singh, learned Standing Counsel and
Shri H.S.Tiwari, learned counsel for the
respondent no.5.

2. This petition has been filed for a
direction to opposite party no.3 to allot the
Fair Price Shop of Village-Rampur Kasiha
(Rampur), Vikas Khand-Sangipur, TehsilLalganj,
District-Pratapgarh
to
the
petitioner in pursuance of the proposal
dated 11.10.2017.

3. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that a proposal was made
in favour of the petitioner for allotment of
5 All. Hari Sagar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1491
Fair Price Shop in question on 11.10.2017
but without any decision on the same by
means of another proposal the respondent
no.5 has been recommended for allotment
of Fair Price Shop and the shop has been
allotted in his favour, which could not have
been done without taking any decision on
the proposal dated 11.10.2017. He further
submits that the Gram Pradhan was present
through out the meeting but in the last he
left the meeting and did not sign the
proposal, which does not make the proposal
invalid.

4. On the other hand learned counsel
for the respondents submit that the proposal
dated 11.10.2017 was not singed by the
Gram Pradhan, therefore it is not a valid
proposal and could not have been acted
upon. It has further been submitted that the
Gram Pradhan himself had made a
complaint in regard to the bungling in
voting in the meeting for the aforesaid
proposal dated 11.10.2017, therefore it
could not have been acted upon and on the
basis of a fresh proposal in which the
respondent no.5 was recommended, he has
been granted the licence of Fair Price Shop
in question. There is no illegality or error in
it. Relying on U.P.Panchayt Raj Rules,
1947 learned counsel for the respondents
submit that without confirmation and
signature of the Pradhan a proposal is not a
valid proposal. Therefore it could not have
been acted upon.

5. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

6. This petition has been filed for a
direction for allotment of Fair Price Shop in
question in favour of the petitioner in
pursuance
of
the
proposal
dated
11.10.2017, which has not been signed by
the Gram Pradhan. Therefore the sole issue
to be considered is as to whether the
proposal which has not been signed by the
Gram Pradhan can be a valid proposal or
void and can be acted upon or not and a
direction can be issued for taking a decision
in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of
the said proposal or not.

7. Rule 46 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj
Rules 1947 (hereinafter referred as Rules
1947) provides that the Pradhan and in his
absence the Up-Pradhan shall preside at the
meeting of the Gaon Sabha and Gaon
Panchayat and in case of absence of both
from any such meeting, the member
nominated under Rule 46-A shall preside at
the meeting or in case the Pradhan has not
made such a nomination, the Prescribed
Authority may nominate any member. Rule
47 of the Rules 1947 provides the duties of
Pradhan. One of the duties of the Pradhan
is to convene and preside at all the
meetings of the Gaon Sabha and the Gaon
Panchayat and the other to control the
transaction of business at the meetings and
preserve order.

8. Rule 35-A of the Rules 1947
provides the procedure of the meetings of
the Gaon Sabha, which is extracted here-inbelow:-

"35-A. Procedure at the meeting
of Gaon Sabha.- Subject to the provision of
Section 11 of the Act, the following
procedure shall be followed at the meeting
of a Gaon Sabha:

(a) The proceedings of the
meeting shall be read and confirmed and
then signed by the Pradhan.

(b) The accounts of the period
elapsed since the last meeting shall be
1492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
presented
for
information
and
consideration.

(c) Other items, if any, shall then
be taken up and considered."

9. In view of above, as per the
procedure prescribed the meeting of the
Gaon Sabha shall be convened by the
Pradhan and he will also preside the
meeting and control the transaction of
business in the meeting. The Pradhan and
in his absence the meeting shall be presided
over by the Up-Pradhan and in his absence
the member nominated by Pradhan or
prescribed authority, as the case may be.
After meeting the proceedings of the
meeting shall be read and confirmed and
then signed by the Pradhan. Therefore the
proceedings of the meeting are not only to
be presided and controlled by the Pradhan
but confirmed and signed also by the
Pradhan after the meeting.

10. When there is a statutory
provision for proceedings of the meeting, a
proposal which has not been confirmed and
signed by the Pradhan, it cannot be said to
be a valid proposal and the proposal made
therein would be void. Admittedly the
proceedings
of
the
meeting
dated
11.10.2017 have not been confirmed and
signed by the Pradhan, therefore it cannot
be said to be a valid proposal and is void.

11. It is also noticed that the Gram
Pradhan of the Village himself had made a
written complaint in this regard to the
Tahsildar, Lalganj, Pratapgarh with request
for permission for re-voting on 11.10.2017
itself and to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lal
Ganj. The Tehsildar had submitted a report
on 18.10.2017 annexing the list of 304
persons who were of the view that election
is valid and 340 persons who were of the
view that election was invalid and were in
favour of secret voting.

12. In view of above, the proposal
dated 11.10.2017 cannot be said to be a
valid proposal, therefore it cannot be acted
upon. Hence no direction can be issued for
taking decision in pursuance of the said
proposal. Even otherwise subsequently
another proposal was made, in which the
name
of
respondent
no.5
was
recommended and he has been appointed.
Therefore also no direction can be issued
for taking any decision on the aforesaid
proposal dated 11.10.2017 which has not
been confirmed and signed by the Pradhan
and is not in accordance with law. The
petition has been filed on misconceived and
baseless grounds and it is liable to be
dismissed.

13. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1492
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.04.202

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ-C No. 34819 of 2022

Committee
of
Management,
Maharshi
Dayanand Saraswati Vaidik Siksha Samiti,
Meerut & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Sri Brijesh Kumar,
Sri Saurabh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Avneesh Tripathi