Having relied on a Full Bench precedent, the bench declined to fault a no-confidence motion notice. However, they disposed of the petition by directing that the scheduled meeting be videographed and the recording preserved on a compact disc.
Direction to conduct videography of the meeting proceedings and preserve it on a compact disc.
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. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33189 of 2019
Petitioner :- Madhu Chandra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Singh,Mr. Shashinandan (Sr.Advt.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.09.2019, whereby, a motion for no confidence has been slated for consideration and the meeting for the said purpose has been convened on 21.10.2019.
From the perusal of notice/ order dated 30.09.2019, we find that it is having arrived at a prima facie satisfaction that the District Magistrate has directed for holding a meeting to discuss no confidence motion by the house.
In view of the Full Bench judgment in Sheela Devi and Ors v. State of U.P. and others 2015 (2) ADJ 325 (FB) , we are of the prima facie opinion that the notice issued by the District Magistrate cannot be faulted with. However, at this stage, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate states that he is confining the writ petition to prayer no. 3 only, which is to the effect that a videography of the proceedings of the meeting be directed.
To this above prayer, Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate has no objection.
In view of the above, while we declined to interfere with the notice dated 30.09.2019, in view of the agreement between the parties, we are disposing of this writ petition with the direction that the meeting that is scheduled to be held on 21.10.2019, videography of the proceedings of the said meeting shall be conducted and a copy thereof shall be preserved in the form of
compact disc.
Sri Sanjay Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel is directed to communicate the District Magistrate concerned about this order, today itself.
Order Date :- 18.10.2019
IrfanUddin
(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the no-confidence motion notice should be allowed in part.
Whether the proceedings of the scheduled meeting should be videographed.
Whether the writ petition disposing with a direction for videography requires full adjudication.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sheela Devi and Ors v. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶7
Sheela Devi and Ors v. State of U.P. and others 2015 (2) ADJ 325 (FB)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Madhu Chandra
State Of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
