Allowed

Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 Sept 2019WRIC/27288/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of an impleadment application regarding members of the Kshetra Panchayat. The primary writ petition challenges a notice for a no-confidence motion as invalid because it was issued beyond the 30-day limit and within one year of a previous notice. The court quashed the notice upheld the petitioner's contentions based on the 1961 Act, and stayed the meeting's operation.

What did the court decide?

The notice dated 07.08.2019 issued by the District Magistrate for the no-confidence motion is quashed, and its operation is stayed until further orders.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27288 of 2019 Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kumar Kesari,Vikas Tiwari

¶3

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶4

In Re: Impeadment Application No. 3 of 2019

¶5

Disposed of.

¶6

For order, see order of date passed on order sheet.

¶7

(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶8

Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Ashok Gupta

¶9

Court No. - 1

¶10

¶11

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶12

Impleadment application filed on behalf of the members of the Kshetra Panchayat, Pradeep Kumar and Smt. Mamta W/o Bhanu Pratap Singh stands disposed of in terms of the Chapter XXII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.

¶13

Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and also Sri Raj Kumar appearing for the person who is seeking impleadment and whose application has been allowed in terms of the Chapter XXII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.

¶14

This writ petition is directed against the notice issued by the Collector/District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai convening a meeting for no-confidence motion against the petitioner vide order dated 07.08.2019 while the writ petition was entertained and an interim order was passed on following terms :-

¶15

"Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and perused the record.

¶16

The contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice issued by the Collector for consideration of 'No Confidence Motion' vide order dated 7.8.2019 is beyond the period of 30 days as the notice was given to the Collector on 19.6.2019. Besides the above, the argument is also advanced to the effect that the second 'No Confidence Motion' notice could have been entertained only after one year period under subsection (12) of Section 15 of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961. He submits that earlier a 'No Confidence Motion' pursuant to the notice dated 13.9.2018 (Annexure-2) fell and the fact to that effect was also recorded by this Court in its order dated 22.4.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.5883 of 2019 and second notice being within a year is clearly barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2015(2) ADJ 325.

¶17

The submissions so advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner prima facie appears to have substance and the matter requires consideration.

¶18

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶19

List on 30th September, 2019.

¶20

In the meanwhile, until further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the order/notice dated 7.8.2019 issued by respondent no.2, District Magistrate, Jalaun, Orai calling a meeting on 24.8.2019 regarding 'No Confidence Motion' shall remain stayed."

¶21

It is admitted to the parties that the notice for convening the meeting for no-confidence motion has been issued to the respondent no.2 and the date of meeting is not within the period of 30 days and therefore, in view of the Section 15 (3) (i) of the Act 1961, such a meeting cannot be validly held and in view of matter the notice dated 07.08.2019 is hereby quashed.

¶22

The writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed on a pure legal question of law.

¶23

(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Ashok Gupta

Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Others

Kishan Bahadur Vs Electricity Distribution Division P.v.v.Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Rama Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Others

Jai Kishore Chaurasia Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mahesh Chandra Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Munendra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others