Court dismissed writ petition challenging Collector's notice to convene no confidence meeting. Court held prior affidavits insufficient to quash notice and directed declaration of meeting results.
Writ petition dismissed; Respondents directed to declare result of no confidence motion tabled on 29.01.2018 forthwith.
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.
1
AFR
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3450 of 2018
Petitioner :- Naima Khatoon Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mr Ram M. Kaushik,Ms Priyanka Midha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mr Akhilesh Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
[Per: Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.]
The petitioner is the Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Simariyawa, District-Sant Kabir Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Kshettra Panchayat). The total strength of the members of the said Kshettra Panchayat is under 121. Seventy members of the Kshettra Panchayat formed the intention to express no confidence against the petitioner. The aforesaid 70 members drew up and signed a written notice of intention to make the motion of no confidence. The said written notice dated 6.1.2018 was duly served upon the Collector on 06.01.2018. The Collector, in the wake of the said notice, called the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence on 29.1.2018.
The petitioner has assailed the notice dated 06.01.2018 issued by the Collector, Sant Kabir Nagar calling the meeting to consider the motion of no confidence on 29.1.2018.
Shri Ram Kaushik learned counsel for the petitioner
2
asserted that the petitioner and her supporters had apprehended that some inimical interests may try to unseat the petitioner by forcing a vote of no confidence on the foot of false affidavits. Consequently, the aforesaid members swore affidavits expressing support in favour of the petitioner way back on 19.11.2017 and 15.9.2017. Some of these members, who gave the aforesaid affidavits, also find mention in the list of members, who had requisitioned the aforesaid meeting to express want of confidence against the petitioner.
The only contention of the petitioner is that the said affidavits annexed as Annexures 4 and 5 to the writ petition are sufficient to discredit the notice by the members to the Collector to call a meeting to consider the motion of no confidence. Once these affidavits are taken into consideration the statutory requirement under Section 28 (1) and (2) of The Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam 1961 of the notice to be signed by not less than one half of the total elected members of the Zila Panchayat, would not be satisfied. The notice to the Collector by the members dated 6.1.2018 and the notice dated 6.1.2018 by the Collector calling the meeting would resultantly become vitiated. Sections 28(1) and (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam 1961 read as under:
3
"(1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Adhyaksha or [xxx] of a Zila Panchayat may be made and porceeded with in accordance with the procedure laid down in the following subsections.
(2) A written notice of intent on to make the motion, in such form as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one-half of the total number of [elected members] of the Zila Panchayat for the time being, together with a copy of the proposed motion, shall be delivered in person, by any one of the members signing the notice, to the collector having jurisdiction over the Zila Panchayat."
The sole question which arises for consideration is whether the said affidavits, which were sworn on the respective dates prior to 6.1.2018, could become the basis for quashing the notice dated 6.1.2018 issued by Collector calling the meeting and the consequent no confidence proceedings.
Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent, refuted the stand of petitioner. He contended that the sole pivot of the petitioner's case is the significance of the affidavits. The learned counsel further asserted that no value can be attached to the affidavits and no reliance can be placed upon them for purposes of the current controversy. The learned counsel fortified his submissions on the back of the judgement entered by this Court in Shashi Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others , reported at
4
(2018) 4 ADJ 1 .
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is being noticed that affidavits are being increasingly used by members to abort the notice expressing want of confidence or to rush the motion of no confidence. This onrush of affidavits commences prior to submission of the notice expressing want of confidence or even subsequent thereto. The affidavits are being employed to project political support or consolidate the political support base. This may be an ingenious political device but has uncertain legal value. Such affidavits may be a tool for political mobilization but not a test for legitimacy in office.
The worth of affidavits to impeach a notice by members expressing want of confidence was considered by this Court in the case of Smt. Shashi Yadav (supra). This Court held thus:
"54. The import and consequence of such affidavits, requires some thought. 55. A written notice to make a motion of no confidence signed by elected members has a certain sanctity. This is an official act which draws a presumption of correctness in its favour. The presumption is rebuttable, but the burden lies upon the person denying its correctness. The burden cannot be discharged lightly.
56. Reducing the burden, would devalue the sanctity of the notice and the no confidence proceedings. Expression of no confidence is often a political action. The process of no confidence culminating in the vote is politically
5
surcharged. Members face divergent pulls from different persuasions. The incumbent Pramukh is desirous of stalling the motion, while initiators of the meeting are anxious to force the vote.
57. In such circumstances, members of the Kshetra Panchayat, signing the written notice of intent are often prone to change of mind. Elected members can resile from their earlier stand of supporting the written notice of intent. In various instances plain denials can be issued.
58. However, affidavits of bald denials or vague refutal of the written notice by members, cannot become the basis of impeaching the credibility of the written notice or cause the Collector to recall the order convening the meeting of no confidence or to interdict the meeting itself.
59. If such standards are to be accepted, then the Collector, would not be able to convene the meeting. The cycle of affidavits would be endless. The Collector would become a prisoner of the stands of the members oscillating between support and denial.
60. The legitimacy of a Pramukh in office rests on the confidence of the majority. Loss of confidence means loss of legitimacy, loss of legitimacy entails loss of office. The confidence of the majority in the Pramukh has to be tested in a meeting where the motion is put to vote. It cannot be determined in the office of the Collector on the basis of affidavits affirming or denying support. The arbiter of confidence is the vote of the majority and not the will of the Collector.
61. However, a meeting cannot be called on the strength of an illegitimate written notice of intent. When objections are taken by members to the written notice of intent, the Collector does not lack the authority to investigate the complaints. An enquiry can be initiated, by the Collector, if such complaints satisfy the minimum benchmark of credibility. Once such enquiry is undertaken, its scope and limit will be as defined by the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Sheela Devi Vs.
6
State of U.P., reported at (2015) 2 UPLBEC 1176................... 63. Complaints by members against the notice of intent fall into various genres, like threats and temptation, coercion or fraud.
64. Take the case of allegations of fraud (which is relevant to the instant case). This is distinguishable from a case of mere denial. Such allegations on affidavits approach the minimum benchmark of credibility, when the act of fraud is set forth in material particulars. As far as possible it should be supported by responsible evidence which makes a compelling case on its face. But if the affidavits are self serving, reflect an afterthought, or do not inspire confidence, or the numbers do not add up to materially affect the result, the Collector may decline to take cognizance of the same and drop the matter".
The affidavits at hand give an undertaking in the present to pre-empt a no confidence notice in the future. The statements in the affidavits are too vague to be reliable and too sweeping to discredit the notice. There is no specific refutal of the requisition of the meeting of no confidence. They are not irrevocable commitments but reversible assurances.
In this view of the matter, the affidavits in issue do not satisfy the test of minimum benchmark of credibility laid down in the case of Sushma Yadav (supra) . We hold the Collector is not required to take cognizance of the said affidavits and no further enquiry is warranted in regard to the said affidavits.
It is also pertinent to notice that there is no averment
7
regarding service of the notice of the aforesaid affidavits on the Collector, Sant Kabir Nagar neither has any proof of service of notice is being brought on record.
In view of the aforesaid fact, we hold that the aforesaid affidavits were served upon the Collector and he could not have acted on the aforesaid affidavits.
There is no infirmity in the notice dated 6.1.2018 by Collector, calling the meeting of no confidence.
For the reasons as aforesaid, the writ petition is devoid of merit. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
The respondents are directed to declare the result of the no confidence motion, which was tabled on 29.01.2018, forthwith.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018/Ashish Tripathi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether affidavits sworn prior to the notice of no confidence can impeach the validity of the notice issued by the Collector.
Whether the Collector is required to investigate the credibility of vague affidavits denying support for the incumbent Pramukh.
Whether writ petition challenging the Collector's meeting notice lacks merit due to alleged lack of service of opposing affidavits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shashi Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and othersFollowed¶18
(2018) 4 ADJ 1
Sheela Devi Vs. State of U.P.Followed¶33
(2015) 2 UPLBEC 1176
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Naima Khatoon
State Of U.P.
Krishna Murari
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
