The main legal point established in the judgment is the authoritative nature of the original Hindi text in the State of Uttarakhand and the requirement for the removal of Gram Pradhan to adhere to the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016.

1. The petitioner before this Court is an elected “Gram Pradhan” of Village Dariyapur, Dayalpur Block, Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. She is aggrieved by the order dated 26.08.2017, passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, (from hereinafter referred to as the “DPRO”), District Haridwar. The DPRO on an application moved before him for bringing a no-confidence motion against the petitioner, signed by more than 1/4th of the members of the “Gram Sabha”, has called for a meeting to discuss this no-confidence motion against the petitioner, vide his order dated 26.08.2017. The meeting is scheduled to take place on 10.09.2017, at 8.00 A.M. at Primary School, Dariyapur, Dayalpur, Block Bhagwanpur.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of DPRO as well as the entire procedure adopted against her on grounds that this is in violation of Section 18 of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016 (from hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). According to the petitioner, the provision has not been complied with inasmuch as though it was mandatory for the DPRO to have first reached a satisfaction that the application for no-confidence motion bears “genuine signatures” of not less than 1/4th of the members, which has not been done. The requirement under Section 18 of the Act is that an application or notice for bringing a no confidence motion against an elected Gram Pradhan must bear signatures of at least 1/4th of the total members of the Gram Sabha and that such a notice must be personally presented by at least five members of Gram Sabha before the DPRO. According to the petitioner, the total number of members in the Gram Sabha are 1781, and hence, 1/4th of this would be 445. Though in the notice, there are 484 members, but 14 members had not even put their signatures on the application for the no-confidence motion, hence actual number was only 470. It is a notice by 470 members. Petitioner further contends that out of the remaining 470 members, 50 members subsequently gave an affidavit that they have not signed such a proposal or notice, therefore, the actual number of members who proposed for a no-confidence motion is further reduced to 420. The order was passed by the DPRO for bringing a no-confidence motion on 26.08.2017, but on 25.08.2017 itself, i.e. a day prior to the date of notice, these 50 members of the “Gram Sabha” had given a signed memorandum to the DPRO stating that they have not signed the original application or in case the application bears their signatures, the same have been obtained without their knowledge, and they do not want to press the no-confidence motion, hence the order dated 26.08.2017 is illegal, as there was no notice of 1/4th of the members.

3. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner Sri Kishore Kumar that once the DPRO was apprised by the 50 members of the Gram Sabha of their intention, he should have refrained from proceeding with the matter, as 50 names were liable to be removed from the list and once the names of these 50 members are removed from the list, it is hence an application (or notice), which has been signed only by 420 members which is short by 25 members as the minimum requirement (of 1/4th of Gram Sabha), would be of 445 members. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016, the DPRO is not merely a postman but he has to apply his mind and has to examine the veracity of the application and the genuineness of signatures, since in the Hindi version of the Act, the word used are “sarsari* Parikshan**” (Hindi), which means that the DPRO should have enquired as to the genuineness of the signatures, before proceeding any further in the matter.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4, who is also one of the five members who submitted a notice to DPRO under Section 18 of the Act, would, however, argue that this Court in an earlier decision in a similar controversy, i.e. in the case of Jyotiram and others Vs. Di