Allahbad High Court
K.B.ASTHANA, CJ., SATISHCHANDRA, K.N.SINGH, S.P.SINGH, K.N.SETH, JJ.
Gyan Singh - Appellant
Versus
The District Magistrate, Bijnor - Respondent
Decided On : 04/23/1975
K. N. SINGH, J. :- A Full Bench of this Court consisting of three Judges referred this petition to a larger Bench as in their opinion certain observations made and conclusions drawn by a Full Bench of this Court in Mahesh Chandra v. Tara Chand, AIR 1958 All 374 (FB) required reconsideration. The Full Bench was of the opinion that in this case a question of gravity and general importance was involved with regard to the principles on which this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can in its discretion, refuse relief to the petitioner, even though it may be established that there was non-compliance of a provision of law mandatory or directory in nature. In view of the observations made by the Full Bench this writ petition has been referred to a larger Bench for decision.
2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the petition are that Sardar Gyan Singh petitioner was President of the Municipal Board, Dhampur, District Bijnor, which is constituted of sixteen elected members and the President. The petitioner was not an elected member of the Board but by virtue of Section 49 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. 1916, he was ex-officio member of the Board. On 24th October, 1973, two members of the Board presented a notice of intention to move a motion of no-confidence in the present (sic) (President ?-Ed.) to the District Magistrate, Bijnor, together with a copy of the motion signed by ten members of the Board including those who personally presented the same to the District Magistrate. On 8th November, 1973, the District Magistrate convened a meeting of the Board for consideration of the motion of no-confidence to be held at the office of the Board on 24th November, 1973, at 11 A. M. which was to be presided over by Irshad Husain, Munsif Magistrate, Nagina. The District Magistrate sent notices by registered post to all the members of the Board informing them about the date, time and place of the meeting. No registered notice of the meeting was, however, sent to the petitioner at his place of residence, instead a copy of the notice was endorsed to the President of Nagar Palika, Dhampur, (Municipal Board, Dhampur) for information and necessary action. This notice was sent by ordinary post and it was received in the office of the Nagar Palika on 14th November, 1973. The District Magistrate further directed publication of the notice in 'Lokmat' and 'Chingari', two local newspapers published from Bijnor. He further directed that a copy of the notice be pasted on the Notice Board of the Municipal Board as well as on the Notice Board of the Tahsil and Collectorate. The direction of the District Magistrate was complied with and the notices were posted on the notice Boards of the Nagar Palika, Dhampur, Tahsil of Dhampur, and Collectorate at Bijnor. They were further published in 'Lokmat' and 'Chingari', the two local newspapers.
3. On 23rd November, 1973, i.e., one day prior to the holding of the meeting the petitioner filed the present petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the District Magistrate not to hold meeting of the Board convened for considering the no-confidence motion against him. The petition was admitted and the notices were made returnable to a Division Bench. On the stay application the Bench refused to stay the holding of the meeting, instead it granted a limited stay order that if the motion of no-confidence is carried at the meeting it shall not be deemed to have come into existence within the meaning of Section 44-A read with Section 47-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act and no proceedings shall be taken for the election of a new President. The meeting of the Board was held on 24th November, 1973, which was presided over by the Munsif, Nagina. In all ten members of the Board attended the meeting, the petitioner, however, did not attend the meeting. All the ten members unanimously voted in favour of the no-confide
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.