SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(All) 1035

A.N.GUPTA, I.P.VASISHTHA
SAROJ KUMARI YADAV – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


I. P. VASISHTH, J.

( 1 ) WE are seized of 4 separate but almost similar, abovenoted, writ petitions revolving around the scope and implications of Rules 3 and 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshelra Panchayats and Zila panchayats (Removal of Pramukhs. Up-Pramukhs. Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha) Enquiry rules. 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Enquiry Rules], framed under the U. P. Gram panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhinium. 1961 (U. P. Act No. XXXIII of 19611 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Since they were argued together in a lot, therefore, we propose to dispose them off by the common instant judgment.

( 2 ) TO have a brief glance in the factual matrix of these cases, in the context of Writ Petition No. 1896 of 1998 ; per her propagation the petitioner was elected as Adhyaksh of Sultanpur Zila panchayat in May, 1995 : she belongs to a particular political party which was opposed to the programme and philosophy of the ruling party of the day, therefore, they started creating unwarranted hindrances in the discharge of her duties, so much so that on having failed in their bid to decimate her by way of an election petitioner they arranged a motion of no-confidence on 31. 5. 1997 which,

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top