1. Challenge to a no-confidence motion notice issued under Section 15 of The U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 864
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Smt. Kavita – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2623 of 2018
Decided On : 05-09-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Delaying tactic adopted by a person cannot enure to his benefit.
When no confidence motion is carried by majority vote, no further enquiry into validity of signature of members signing no confidence motion is warranted.
Delaying tactic adopted by a person cannot enure to his benefit.
When no confidence motion is carried by majority vote, no further enquiry into validity of signature of members signing no confidence motion is warranted.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Panchayati Raj
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226
UTTAR PRADESH KSHETRA PANCHAYAT AND ZILA PANCHAYAT ADHINIYAM: S.15, S.15(3), S.15(2)
UTTAR PRADESH KSHETRA PANCHAYAT AND ZILA PANCHAYAT ADHINIYAM: S.15, S.15(3), S.15(2)
Headnote
(a) The U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 – Section 15 – Notice of no confidence motion issued 17 days before – Appellant refusing to accept personally – Sent by post – Appellant replying and raising objections on 16 th day – Contention of no giving clear 15 day’s notice rejected. (Para 5)
(b) The U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 – Section 15 – Notice of no confidence motion already acted upon – Motion passed – No further enquiry into validity of signature of members signing no confidence motion is warranted. (Para 7)
2018 (7) SCALE 605 – Relied upon
AIR 2015 All. 65; 1966 ALJ 612 – Cited with approval
Facts of the case:
A Notice was issued by the Collector/District Magistrate on the basis of requisition given by 32 members out of 59 members of the Kshettra Panchayat, expressing no confidence against the appellant who was the Block Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat at the relevant time. The notice had fixed the meeting date on the 17th day from the date of notice. The appellant challenged the said notice by way of a writ petition before the High Court on two counts. First, that the Collector had failed to hold an enquiry into the validity of signatures of 10 members, who subsequently filed affidavits stating that their signatures were obtained by fraud. Second, that there was no clear 15 days’ notice as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act.
The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
No interference is required.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Validity of notice challenged on grounds of failure to verify signatures allegedly obtained by fraud and lack of mandatory fifteen days' notice. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The Collector's role is summary, limited to scanning notice requirements without conducting detailed evidentiary inquiries into fraud, forgery, or coercion. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. The Collector's jurisdiction under Section 15 is summary, excluding the power to resolve seriously disputed questions of fact through detailed evidentiary hearings. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 9 )
6. Does the Collector have the power to conduct a detailed evidentiary inquiry into the validity of signatures on a no-confidence motion notice?
No. The Collector's jurisdiction is summary in nature, limited to scanning the notice for essential requirements. The Collector cannot conduct a full-fledged trial or detailed evidentiary inquiry into disputed questions of fact such as forgery, fraud, or coercion. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. What is the legal nature of the proceedings before the Collector under Section 15(2) of the Act?
The proceedings are summary in nature. The Collector does not exercise the powers of a court nor conduct judicial proceedings based on evidence adduced at a trial. (Para 6 )
8. How are disputed questions of fact regarding the notice period handled in writ jurisdiction?
Where the notice period involves disputed questions of fact, such issues cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. If the meeting was conducted and the motion passed, the court will not interfere. (Para 5 )
fJUDGMENT :
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2017, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No.27912 of 2017, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for challenging the no confidence motion notice issued under Section 15 of The U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (for short, “the Act”).
2. A Notice was issued by the Collector/District Magistrate, Bulandshahar, U.P., dated 15th June, 2017 on the basis of requisition given by 32 members out of 59 members of the Kshettra Panchayat, expressing no confidence against the appellant who was the Block Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Lakhawati at the relevant time. The notice had fixed the meeting date as 1st July, 2017 i.e. on the 17th day from the date of notice. The appellant challenged the said notice by way of a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad on two counts. First, that the Collector had failed to hold an enquiry into the validity of signatures of 10 members, who subsequently filed affidavits stating that their signatures were obtained by fraud. Second, that there was no clear 15 days’ notice as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Act. The Division Bench, after considering the factual position emanating from the record before it, negatived both the contentions and eventually dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant vide the impugned judgment.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court raising the self-same two grounds urged before the High Court, for challenging the validity of the no confidence motion notice dated 15th June, 2017. The respondents have supported the reasons recorded by the High Court and would contend that both the grounds urged by the appellant are devoid of any merit.
4. We have heard Mr. Aditya Ranjan, learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Reverting to the second contention that there was no clear 15 days’ notice, this aspect has been considered by the High Court on the basis of record before it, revealing that the appellant had refused/avoided to receive the notice personally and hence it was sent by post. The High Court also found that the appellant had failed to produce any material on record to show that the notice was dispatched after the 17th day and that on the appellant’s own admission in the writ petition, it was evident that the objection to the said notice was taken on the 16th day itself relating to signatures of few members who had signed the notice. This was a strong circumstance to belie the tall claim of the appellant. Taking an overall view of the matter, the High Court noted that the issue involved a disputed question of fact and could not be decided in writ jurisdiction. At the same time, the High Court took note of the fact that the meeting was duly conducted as scheduled in terms of the stated notice and the no confidence motion was passed by a majority, against the appellant. We, therefore, find no reason to depart from the conclusion recorded by the High Court for rejecting the challenge that no clear 15 days’ notice was given as claimed by the appellant. Accordingly, this contention must fail and is rejected.
6. As aforesaid, since the stated notice has already been acted upon and the no confidence motion has been passed against the appellant by majority, no further enquiry into the grounds urged by the appellant is warranted. Be that as it may, even the first ground urged by the appellant has been justly negatived by the High Court following the exposition of the Full Bench of the same High Court in Smt. Sheela Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 2015 All. 65 which decision adverts to the dictum of another Full Bench decision of the same High Court in Mathura Prasad Tewari Vs. Assistant District Panchayat Officer, Faizabad , 1966 ALJ 612. In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench has reproduced paragraph 23 o
