Dismissed

Mohit Chaudhary v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2018WRIC/37021/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Collector's convening of a no confidence motion against a Kshettra Panchayat Chairman. The Court held that the one-year limitation did not apply as the earlier notice was rejected due to forged signatures without any meeting being held.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as there is no merit in the challenge to the convening of the no confidence motion.

Mohit Chaudhary Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37021 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohit Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Yadav,Anil Kishore Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Anil Kishore Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Pramod Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents no. 1, 2 & 3.

¶7

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come to this Court challenging the proceedings initiated for no confidence motion against the Chairman of the Kshettra Panchayat Khurja, District-Bulandshahar, U.P.

¶8

The main ground for challenge is that the meeting for no confidence motion has been convened by the Collector in violation of the provisions of Section 15(12) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (in short "the Act") as the period of one year has not yet elapsed since the earlier notice of confidence motion dated 11.4.2018. It is undisputed fact that the Kshettra Panchayat consists of 121 elected members. According to Section 15(2) of the Act at least half or more from the total strength of the elected members can bring a motion of no confidence. On an earlier occasion, a notice of intention to move no confidence was given to the Collector by 85 signatories/members. The role of the Collector for proceeding to convene a meeting of no confidence motion is to first satisfy himself that at least half of the strength of the elected members have signed the notice. After verification of the aforesaid, the Collector found that only 52 out of 85 signatories were genuine and rest of the signatures were forged. Upon coming to this conclusion the Collector declined to convene the meeting of no confidence motion pursuant to notice dated 11.4.2018 by an order dated 20.4.2018.

¶9

Shri Anil Kishore Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that now a fresh notice has been given by the members expressing no confidence in the Chairman by notice dated 22.10.2018 and the Collector has fixed a date for meeting of no confidence as 19.11.2018 and, therefore, from the last notice, i.e. dated 11.4.2018, one year as contemplated under Section 15(12) of the Act has not elapsed and, therefore, the Collector has no jurisdiction

¶10

to convene another meeting of no confidence motion by fixing a date as 19.11.2018.

¶11

Shri Pramod Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 on the other hand submits that pursuant to the earlier notice no meeting was called and the notice itself was held to be defective at the verification stage by the District Magistrate and, therefore, the limitation of one year would not apply as no meeting was held on the earlier occasion.

¶12

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

We are not able to accept the argument of Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the period of one year has not elapsed. It is to be noted that notice to the District Magistrate with the signature of members is merely an intent to propose a no confidence motion and upon acceptance of notice, after verification of the signatures and genuineness of the members, meeting is fixed where no confidence motion is held. In the present case the notice itself was rejected on the ground that the signatures were forged, as such, the limitation of one year in the present case would not apply as no meeting was earlier held for no confidence motion.

¶14

There is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly, dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.11.2018 Sunil Kr. Gupta

¶16

(Ajay Bhanot, J.) (Abhinava Upadhya, J.)

Mohit Chaudhary v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Chaudhary v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvez Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt.Sadhna Maurya Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and 2 Others

Jagdish Prasad Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prabhwati Devi Vs Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation and 4 Others

Brahm Kant Singh Vs Union of India and 5 Others

M/S Hari Kishan Murari Lal Vs Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and 2 Others