IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL, PANKAJ BHATIA, JJ.
Smt. Rekha Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And 6 Others - Respondents
WRIT - C No. 36490 of 2018 With WRIT - C No. 38696 of 2018
Decided On : 13-03-2019
Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam Act, 1961 – Section 21, 237 28 – Uttar Pradesh (Zila Panchayats) (Voting on Motions of Non-Confidence) Rules, 1966 – Rule 4, 5 and 7(2),7(3),8,9 and 49-M – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 94 ,237 read with Section 28(8) – Ballot Act 1872 – Petitioner was elected as Chairperson, Zila Panchayat, Prayagraj She took oath – There are total 92 members of Zila Panchayat, Prayagraj including petitioner 64 members of Zila Panchayat moved a no-confidence motion against petitioner before District Magistrate order for meeting to consider no-confidence motion – Petitioner made statement that if first writ petition allowed, no cause of action in second writ petition would survive – Seeking quash the minutes meeting of no-confidence motion – Held, Main object to bring amendment was that in wake of large scale cross voting in Rajya Sabha and Legislative Council election Ethics Committee of Parliament made certain suggestions to eradicate the said evil underlined object was to keep purity of election – No corresponding provision to section 94 of Act,1951 under act 1961 or Rules, 1966 – Choices while casting votes have to be made without any external influence and that is what is true choice to which electoral process should aim – Ballot not sacrosanct "Australian Ballaot" as defined under encyclopedias Britanica – Petitions allowed – (Paras: 78,81 to 83)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner was elected as Chairperson, Zila Panchayat, Prayagraj She took oath – There are total 92 members of Zila Panchayat, Prayagraj including petitioner 64 members of Zila Panchayat moved a no-confidence motion against petitioner before District Magistrate order for meeting to consider no-confidence motion – Petitioner made statement that if first writ petition allowed, no cause of action in second writ petition would survive – Seeking quash the minutes meeting of no-confidence motion.
Findings of the court:
Main object to bring amendment was that in wake of large scale cross voting in Rajya Sabha and Legislative Council election Ethics Committee of Parliament made certain suggestions to eradicate the said evil underlined object was to keep purity of election – No corresponding provision to section 94 of Act,1951 under act 1961 or Rules, 1966 – Choices while casting votes have to be made without any external influence and that is what is true choice to which electoral process should aim – Ballot not sacrosanct "Australian Ballaot" as defined under encyclopedias Britanica.
Result: Petition allowed
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.
1. The petitioner was elected Adhyaksha (hereinafter referred to as the "Chairperson"), Zila Panchayat, Allahabad (now Prayagraj) in 2016. A no-confidence motion has been passed against her. She has instituted the first writ petition, being Writ-C No. 36490 of 2018, for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the minutes of the meeting of no-confidence motion dated 25th October, 2018. A further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to produce the video and CD (Compact Disc) of the proceedings held on 25th October, 2018 before this Court.
2. While the first writ petition was pending, the State Government vide an order dated 15th November, 2018 appointed Smt. Kesari Devi, respondent no. 4, as Chairperson, Zila Panchayat, Prayagraj under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 [Act, 1961] (U.P. Act No. 33 of 1961). The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in the aforesaid second writ petition, being Writ-C No. 38696 of 2018. It is worthwhile to mention that in 2016 election petitioner had defeated the respondent No. 4, Smt. Kesari Devi.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner have made a statement that if the first writ petition of the petitioner is allowed, no cause of action in the second writ petition would survive. Learned counsel for all the parties, thus, have addressed us only in Writ-C No. 36490 of 2018, which is hereinafter referred to as the "writ petition". However, Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar', learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 38696 of 2018, has also made submission for the petitioner.
4. The relevant facts are these;
5. The petitioner was elected as Chairperson, Zila Panchayat, Prayagraj in the year 2016. She took oath in January, 2016. There are total 92 members of the Zila Panchayat, Prayagraj including the petitioner. On 01st October, 2018, 64 members of the Zila Panchayat moved a no-confidence motion against the petitioner before the District Magistrate, who vide his order dated 03rd October, 2018 fixed 25th October, 2018 as the date for the meeting to consider the no-confidence motion. The notices were sent to the members by the District Magistrate. The District Judge, Allahabad nominated the Additional District Judge-II, Allahabad as the Presiding Officer to preside over the meeting of no-confidence.
6. On 25th October, 2018, the meeting of the Members of the Zila Panchayat was held to consider the motion of no-confidence. In the said meeting out of 92 members, 51 elected members of the Zila Panchayat including the petitioner were present. Out of 51 members, who were present, 48 members cast their vote in favour of no-confidence motion, two members cast their vote against the no-confidence and one vote was rejected as invalid. The Presiding Officer on the same day declared that the no-confidence motion has been passed with the majority by more than a half (1/2) members of the Zila Panchayat, hence it was declared passed.
7. In the first writ petition, Writ-C No. 36490 of 2018, an impleadment application was filed on behalf of Smt. Kesari Devi. Another impleadment application was filed by the petitioner for impleadment of 50 members of the Zila Panchayat, who were sought to be impleaded as respondent nos. 9 to 58 in the writ petition. Both the impleadment applications were allowed by separate orders on the same date i.e. 02nd November, 2018 and the persons sought to be impleaded were impleaded.
8. We have heard Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Siddhartha Nandan, and Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar', learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri R.D. Tewari, Sri Raj Kumar and Smt. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent no. 8, Sri
S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra
Chaitanya Kumar Adatiya v. Smt. Sushila Dixit and others
S. Iqbal Singh v. S. Gurdas Singh and others
Arun Kumar Bose v. Mohd. Furkan Ansari and others
Kuldip Nayar and others v. Union of India and others
Rekha Rana (Smt) v. Jaipal Sharma and others
Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (Dead) by Legal Representatives and others
Smt. Ishrat Jahan v. State of U.P. and others
Usha Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
Bhanumati and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh through its Principal Secretary and others
Arikala Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari and another
Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambanda Pandarasannidi v. State of Madras
Ajay Pratap Rai v. District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur and others
Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and others
Madhukar Maurya v. State of U.P. and others
Smt. Sarita Devi v. State of U.P. and others
Mange Ram v. District Panchayat Raj Officer/Prescribed Authority, Saharanpur and others
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala
People`s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
Manoj Narula v. Union of India
SupremeToday
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.