The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the District Magistrate's order regarding a no-confidence motion against a Kshettra Panchayat Pramukh. The judgment held that filing a fresh notice was not barred as no meeting was actually convened earlier.
Null (Writ petition dismissed; impleadment application allowed)
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.
Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39220 of 2018
Petitioner :- Raibun Nisha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Mahendra Singh
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Order on Impleadment Application
This application has been filed for impleading Rinki Luxmi as respondent no. 4 in the array of the parties of the writ petition.
The prayer so made for impleading Rinki Luxmi as respondent no. 4 in the writ petition has not been objected by the learned counsel for the respondents.
Impleadment application is allowed.
Let necessary incorporation be carried out, accordingly, during the course of the day.
Order Date :- 5.12.2018 Arun
.
.
.
.
.
Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39220 of 2018
Petitioner :- Raibun Nisha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Mahendra Singh
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, interalia, for the following reliefs:
"(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.11.2018 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) passed by the District Magistrate, Kushinagar.
(2) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the motion of "No Confidence" alleged to have been carried out against the petitioner on 17.11.2018.
(3) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in any manner in functioning of the petitioner as Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Fazial Nagar, District Kushinagar."
The brief facts of the case as narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows:
The petitioner was the elected Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Fazialnagar, Kushinagar (in short Kshettra Panchayat). The total number of elected members in the Kshettra Panchayat,
Fazialnagar, Kushinagar was 111. A notice dated 01.01.2018 along with the copy of proposed no confidence motion under Section 15(2) of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (In short the "Act") was delivered by some of members of Kshettra Panchayat to the Collector. In pursuance of the said notice, affidavits were forwarded to SDM for verification. After verification, the Collector came to a conclusion that less than half members of the total elected members of Kshettra Panchayat have signed the notice, as such, no further proceedings were carried out in pursuance of the notice dated 01.01.2018. It has been further contended that again a fresh notice dated 17.11.2018 along with copy of proposed "No Confidence Motion" against the petitioner was delivered by the members of the Kshettra Panchayat on 17.11.2018. In pursuance of the same, the District Magistrate convened a meeting on 12.12.2018 for the considering the "No Confidence Motion" against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 21.11.2018 is illegal and is in the teeth of Section 15(12) of the Act, as the notice dated 01.01.2018 for convening the meeting for the consideration of "No Confidence Motion" against the petitioner delivered under Section 15(2) of the Act has already been rejected, as such, no further meeting can be convened on the basis of the fresh notice for considering the no confidence motion against the petitioner.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4 and perused the record.
We do not find substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner because the meeting was not convened under Section 15(3) of the Act on the basis of the earlier notice dated 01.01.2018 for considering no confidence motion by the Collector. Therefore, Section 15(12) of the Act would not be attracted in such a case. It would apply only when meeting actually is convened but the motion is not carried out or the meeting though convened but for want of quorum etc, the actual business in the meeting does not take place. If no meeting is held, it would not debar a fresh motion. We are also fortified in our view by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Prema Devi versus State of U.P. and others, 2012 SCC Online ALL 4348 as well as law propounded in the case of Khursheed Hussain Versus District Magistrate and Collector, Bareilly, 1991 RD 492. Thus in the present case, delivery of a fresh notice dated 17.11.2018 together with the copy of the proposed no confidence motion to the Collector for convening the meeting under Section 15(3) of the Act is not barred under Section 15(12) of the Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, Section 15(12) of the Act shall not be attracted at all.
In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.12.2018 Arun
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a fresh notice for a no-confidence motion against a local body chairman is barred under Section 15(12) when no meeting was previously convened under Section 15(3).
Whether submission of a notice to the Collector for consideration of no-confidence motion under Section 15(2) must be interpreted as a convened meeting under Section 35(12).
Whether the writ petition challenging the District Magistrate's order regarding the no-confidence motion succeeds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Prema Devi versus State of U.P. and othersReferred¶30
2012 SCC Online ALL 4348 · Who else cites this
Khursheed Hussain Versus District Magistrate and Collector, BareillyReferred¶30
1991 RD 492
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Raibun Nisha
State Of U.P.
District Magistrate, Kushinagar
Unknown Third Party
Rinki Luxmi
Shashi Kant Gupta
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
