JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Navin Sinha learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Saiful Islam Siddiqui and Ms. Tahira Kazmi, Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari and Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners; Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.S. Kushwaha and Sri B.K. Shukla, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi, Sri Prabhakar Dubey, Sri A.R. Siddiqui, learned counsels appearing for the private-respondents.

2. In this batch of writ petition, a common question arises about the applicability of the amendment brought by the Ordinance No. 8 of 2022, in Section 15 (13) of U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961, (in short as ‘the Act’ 1961) whereby the period of “one year” prescribed therein has been substituted to “two years.” The said amendment has been enforced on 04.10.2022 and published in the official gazette dated 06.10.2022. In all the connected matters, the application to make the motion of No Confidence was received by the District Magistrate/Collector concerned, in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 15 and the date to convene the meeting for consideration of the motion had been fixed prior to the enforcement of the amendment. But before the motion could be tabled, due to the amendment brought by the Ordinance in Sub-Section (13) of Section 15, the Collector concerned passed individual orders that the motion cannot be carried out in view of the amendments. The motion of No-Confidence were, thus, cancelled.

3. Challenging the said action of the Collector concerned, it was argued by Sri Navin Sinha learned Senior Counsel that the application to make a motion of No-Confidence was duly received by the Collector. The date of the meeting was intimated to the elected members, the meeting was adjourned for one or other reasons and before the date fixed for the adjourned meeting, the amendment by way of Ordinance No. 8 of 2022 has been brought into force. The date of enforcement of the ordinance is 04.10.2022. The elected members, who moved the motion of No-Confidence have a right to bring the said motion. The requirements of Section 15 (2) and (3) to carry out the motion of No-Confidence had been fulfilled, summary enquiry by the Collector concerned had been concluded, the right accrued to the elected members to carry out No-Confidence motion after the scrutiny of the notice of intention in writing, in the form prescribed under the rule framed under the 1961 Act, cannot be taken away. The Ordinance No. 8 of 2022 does not express intention to make the substituted provisions retrospective. The repeal/substitution of sub-section (13) of Section 15 can only be given prospective effect. Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act’ 1897 has been pressed before us to submit that where any statutory provisions/Act or regulation is repealed by any enactment made, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under the enactment so repealed. It was argued that the right to bring No-Confidence Motion by elected members has been accrued in their favour with the steps taken by them in exercise of their right. The applications moved by the elected members before the repeal of the old provisions/enactment of new provisions is the expression of No-Confidence which has to be brought to its logical end by convening a meeting for the purpose.

4. The aid of the decision of the Apex Court in Isha Valimohamed and Another vs. V. Haji Gulam Mohamad and Haji Dad Trust, 1974 (2) SCC 484, Bansidhar and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 1989 (2) SCC 557 has been taken, to place the effect of the repeal in view of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, t