IMPORTANT POINT
The provision for removing an elected representative such as Panchayat Adhyaksha is of fundamental importance to ensure the democratic functioning of the Institution as well as to ensure the transparency and accountability in the functions performed by the elected representatives.

Headnote:(a) U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 – Section 28 – Not inconsistent with Part IX of the Constitution, particularly Article 243N – Section 29 providing for removal of Adhyaksha in no way overrides section 28. (Para 20, 21)
       (b) U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 – Section 28 – Removal of Adhyaksha by no confidence motion – Article 243F silent in this regard – Does not mean that the two provisions are inconsistent. (Para 22)
       (c) U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 – Section 28 – Application – The Adhyaksha being a Schedule caste – Immaterial – In case of removal by no-confidence motion such member can be replaced by another member of the same category. (Para 23)
       (d) Constitution of India – Chapter IX – Panchayat Raj – States empowered to make provisions for implement provisions of Chapter IX – Includes power to provide for no-confidence motion against the Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat. (Para 24)
       (e) U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 – Section 28 – Tenure of Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat – Removal by no-confidence motion – Within the five year tenure – No infirmity. (Para 25)
       (f) U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 – Section 28 – No-confidence motion – Apprehension of interference by executive – Electorates’ right to chose kept alive – Apprehension unfounded. (Para 26)
       (2010) 12 SCC 1; (1959) Supp. 2 SCR 8; (1955) 1 SCR 799; (2004) 13 SCC 217; (1991) 4 SCC 139; (2004) 1 SCC 681; (2004) 7 SCC 558; (2005) 4 SCC 649; (2005) 4 SCC 741; (1983) 1 SCC 305 – Distinguished
       (g) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLVII, rule 7 – SLP challenging decision in review petition but not the main judgment is normally not maintainable – Present SLP entertained in view of issues regarding apprehension of adverse effects of section 28 of U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 on reservation policies. (Para 31)
       (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 595 – Relied upon
       (2005) 4 SCC 741; (2004) 4 SCC 122 – Distinguished
       (1994) 2 SCC 753; SLP(C) No. 2429 of 2012; (2013) 3 SCC 63; (2010) 12 SCC 1; (2004) 13 SCC 675 – Referred
       (h) U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 – Section 28A – Does not dilute or nullify the protection given to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes in Chapter IX of the Constitution. (Para 34, 36, 37)
       (2010) 12 SCC 1 – Relied upon
       (1983) 1 SCC 305; (1997) 7 SCC 463; (2007) 6 SCC 81; (1996) 3 SCC 709 – Distinguished
       (i) Legal Interpretation – Interpretation of Judgments – Bhanumati is neither per incuriam nor does it need reconsideration. (Para 42, 50)
       (2010) 12 SCC 1 – Relied upon
       (2004) 13 SCC 217; (1991) 4 SCC 139; (2004) 1 SCC 681; (2005) 4 SCC 649; (2004) 7 SCC 558 – Distinguished
       (2000) 10 SCC 620 – Referred
       (j) Interpretation of statute – Section 28 of Act is not repugnant to Chapter IX of the Constitution – Section 28 is intra vires. (Para 51)
       (2010) 12 SCC 1; (1956) SCR 393; (1955) 1 SCR 799 – Relied upon
       (2007) 2 SCC 1; (1959) Supp. 2 SCR 8 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:
       The appellant was elected a Member of the Zila Panchayat, Sitapur, U.P. He was also elected as Adhyaksh of the Zila Panchayat, Sitapur.
       On 30th October, 2012, a notice of proposed Motion of No Confidence was given to the Collector, Sitapur for calling a meeting under Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961.
       Aggrieved by the issuance of said notice, the appellant filed Writ Petition.
       High Court dismissed the writ petition.
       The review petition filed under direction of Supreme Court was also dismissed by the High Court.
       Finding of the Court:
       Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 is intra vires.

JUDGMENT

Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.:-

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in Review Petition No.103 of 2013 on 4th July, 2013 dismissing the review petition filed by the appellant.

3. Since the issues raised in these appeals are pristinely legal, it would not be necessary to make a detailed reference to the facts, leading to the filing of the present appeals. Even otherwise, the High Court in the impugned judgment has made an elaborate survey of the facts. Therefore, it is unnecessary to repeat the same. However, the foundational facts for challenging the impugned judgment of the High Court are recapitulated for ready reference.

4. The appellant successfully contested the election held in October, 2010 for becoming a Member of the Zila Panchayat, Sitapur, U.P. 62 candidates were elected as the Members of the Zila Panchayat including the appellant and respondents 5 to 37. On 12th December, 2010, the appellant was elected as Adhyaksh of the Zila Panchayat, Sitapur. On 30th October, 2012, a notice of proposed Motion of No Confidence was given to the Collector, Sitapur for calling a meeting under Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The notice calling for a Motion of No Confidence was signed by 37 members. The legal requirement under Section 28(2) is that a motion expressing want of confidence in the Adhyaksh must be signed by not less than half of the total number of elected members. On 31st October, 2012, the Collector, Sitapur issued a notice informing the elected members that a meeting for considering the Motion of No Confidence will be held on 23rd November, 2012.

5. Aggrieved by the issuance of said notice, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.9654 of 2012 on various grounds alleging that the motion for no confidence has been done with an ulterior motive to usurp the office of the appellant. It was alleged that atleast three members whose names were mentioned in the Motion for No Confidence had not signed the motion/notice requesting the Collector to call a meeting. The appellant made the following prayers in the writ petition :-

“(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice of intent to bring no-confidence motion against the petitioner;

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated 31st October, 2012, issued by respondent No.3, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to verify the genuineness of the signature of the member’s on the notice to bring motion against the petition dated 30th October, 2012,

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to let the petitioner to continue on the office of Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat Sitapur of Tehsil & District Sitapur.

(v) Issues an ad-interimmandamus to the above effect.

(vi) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. And

(vii) Award the costs of the petition to the petitioner.”

6. The High Court on 21st November, 2012 directed the District Judge or any Additional District Judge nominated by him to hold an enquiry to ascertain genuineness of the affidavits and signatures of members and to submit a report thereon before the next date of hearing. It was also directed that further proceedings of “No Confidence Motion” shall remain in abeyance. The matter was to be listed on 20th December, 2012. The report was duly submitted, which indicated that 33 Members had admitted their signatures appearing on the notice, and the affidavits, submitted in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 242

IMPORTANT POINTThe provision for removing an elected representative such as Panchayat Adhyaksha is of fundamental importance to ensure the democratic functioning of the Institution as well as to ensure the transparency and accountability in the functions performed by the elected representatives.

Cases Referred (19)

IMPORTANT POINT
The provision for removing an elected representative such as Panchayat Adhyaksha is of fundamental importance to ensure the democratic functioning of the Institution as well as to ensure the transparency and accountability in the functions performed by the elected representatives.