IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, JJ.
Jayantra Devi – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 32101 of 2022
Decided On : 09-02-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 243ZG And 243-O - U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 - Section 15(3)(ii) - U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 - sub-section (3) of Section 87A - No-confidence’ - Notice - Officer for extension of leave - Controversy at hands are that a notice to bring ‘No-confidence’ motion against the petitioner herein, signed by 76 members out of total 99 members of the constituency Bazar was received by the District Magistrate - No-confidence motion’ – Held, Clear ten days notice had been given to the elected members and motion of No-confidence was carried out by majority votes date and time fixed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. On account of the unprecedented adverse situation faced by Presiding Officer to preside at the meeting fixed by the Collector mere fact that he himself did not adjourn the meeting or did not fix date and time of meeting at the time of adjournment itself but intimated it later on assumption of his office after leave, would not invalidate motion carried out in the meeting held - Defect in adjournment of meeting fixed - Adjournment of meeting by Presiding Officer giving intimation to District Magistrate was a device to get over provisions of Sub-Section (3)(ii) of Section 15 as clear notice of fifteen days initially was not given to the elected members does not impress – Court find that there is no violation of the mandatory provisions of Sub-Section (4-B) of Section 15 of Act, 1961 on the part of Presiding Officer - There is no error in decision making process - Writ petition is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal and Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajit Kumar Singh learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Aditya Kumar Singh learned Counsel for respondent No. 6.
2. This writ petitioner is challenging the ‘No-confidence motion’ carried out against her in the meeting held on 30.9.2022 as also the resultant notification issued by the Election Commission of India notifying the vacancy of the post of Block Pramukh/Pramukh, Kshettra Panchayat Haisar Bazar, District Sant Kabir Nagar.
3. The relevant facts to determine the controversy at hands are that a notice to bring ‘No-confidence’ motion against the petitioner herein, signed by 76 members out of total 99 members of the constituency namely Kshettra Panchayat Haisar Bazar was received by the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar. The District Magistrate by a notice dated 23.8.2022 called a meeting to consider ‘No-confidence motion’ on 8.9.2022. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said notices were dispatched on 24.8.2022 by registered post. The period between the date of dispatch and the schedule date of meeting being less than 15 days, ‘No-confidence motion’ could not have been carried out on the date fixed, i.e. 8.9.2022 in view of mandatory provisions of Section 15(3)(ii) of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1961”).
4. It is an admitted fact of the matter that the meeting could not be convened on 8.9.2022. It was adjourned on account of an emergency leave applied by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar who was to preside over the meeting. The emergency leave application dated 6.9.2022 was moved by the Presiding Officer due to ill health of his mother with the prayer that he may be permitted to leave the station to go to District Meerut. Another leave application dated 7.9.2022 was moved by the Presiding Officer for extension of leave till 11.9.2022 due to prolonged illness of his mother. The leave was duly granted to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanghata, Sant Kabir Nagar namely the Presiding Officer as per the service rules, by the competent Authority.
The District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar has issued an office order dated 7.9.2022 intimating that the meeting of ‘No-confidence’ scheduled on 8.9.2022 could not be held due to unavoidable circumstances and had been postponed. Further, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanghata/the Presiding Officer intimated the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar by the letter dated 15.9.2022 that the next date of the meeting was fixed on 30th September, 2022 to be held at 11:30 AM in the meeting hall in the office of Kshettra Panchayat, Haisar Bazar. The intimation of the date fixed of the meeting had been given to all the members, Kshettra Panchayat and the minutes of the meeting dated 30.9.2022, the result of the voting, shows that out of total 99 members, 95 had participated in the meeting and exercised their franchise. Out of 95 votes, 72 were in favour of ‘No-confidence motion’ and hence it was passed with the strength of more than 50% of the members present and voting.
There is no dispute about the above noted facts. Sri Rahul Agarwal learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, however, argued that the initial notice dated 23.8.2022 fixing 8.9.2022 for the meeting was dispatched on 24.8.2022 and hence the mandatory requirement of 15 days of intimation of the date fixed for meeting had not been fulfilled. Two terminal days, i.e. the first and the last date, i.e. the date of dispatch of notice and the date fixed for meeting have to be excluded from the time to be reckoned for compliance of Sub-Section (3) of clause (ii) of Section 15 of the Act, 1961.
Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Yadu
Adesh Singh Yadav vs. Collector Bareilly
Bhanumati and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Gyan Singh vs. the District Magistrate, Bijnor and Others
Hari Shankar Jain vs. Sonia Gandhi
Kamla Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others
Kiran Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others
Kiran Pal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Niyazuddin vs. State of U.P. and Others
Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Rampur vs. The Municipal Board, Rampur
Surendra Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Others
Procedural compliance in no confidence motion notices is sufficient; prior satisfaction of the authority is not necessary, affirming adherence to statutory requirements.
Word ‘lost’ appearing in 2nd proviso to section 15(1), in deference to fundamental principles of statutory interpretation, has to be essentially comprehended in text and context in which it appears.
Section 15 of Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 have been held to be directory and not mandatory, any resolution adopted cannot be faulted with merely because time limit prescribed under Section 15(1) have n....
The court established that the personal delivery requirement in Section 15(2) is directory, allowing for valid notice delivery to an alternate official.
Procedural safeguards under Section 24 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act are mandatory for no-confidence motions; late notice receipt does not invalidate proceedings absent demonstrable prejudice.
The court ruled that compliance with procedural safeguards under the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 is critical for no-confidence motions, affirming that minor deviations do not invalidate democrati....
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.