Back
DONADI RAMESH, MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
Munni Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Personal affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 in compliance of our order is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Shailesh Kumar Pathak, Sri Sabhajeet Nishad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Chief Standing Counsel-VII for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gaurav Gautam, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
3. With their consent, the instant petition is being disposed of finally at this stage as they waive right to file further affidavits.
4. The petitioner is an elected ward member of Kshettra Panchayat, Block Karma, Tehsil Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra. She alongwith 57 other members served a written notice of intention dated 1.9.2023 to bring motion of no-confidence against the Pramukh (respondent No. 3). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.9.2023 passed by respondent No. 2 (Collector) holding that the written notice of intention to bring the motion of no-confidence against Pramukh is not in accordance with Section 15 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat, Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') and was consequently rejected. The noti
The court established that the personal delivery requirement in Section 15(2) is directory, allowing for valid notice delivery to an alternate official.
The Collector must convene a meeting for no confidence motions upon valid notice and cannot conduct a detailed inquiry into disputed facts.
The Collector cannot delegate authority regarding no confidence motions; decisions must be made independently, reflecting immediacy and adherence to statutory mandates.
The Collector has sole jurisdiction to assess no confidence motions without delegating authority to others and must act within statutory timelines to validate signatures.
Procedural compliance in no confidence motion notices is sufficient; prior satisfaction of the authority is not necessary, affirming adherence to statutory requirements.
The court ruled that proper notice for a no-confidence motion was served, and the Collector's decision to set it aside was erroneous, affirming the motion's validity.
The form of notice for a no confidence motion is directory; substantial compliance with statutory requirements suffices.
The failure to furnish a copy of the requisition for a no-confidence motion does not invalidate the motion if it is adopted by the requisite majority, as the requirement is directory, not mandatory.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
