Bandana vs State of U. P. - 2025 Supreme(All) 2167

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 2167

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, JAYANT BANERJI, JJ
Bandana – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:- Siddharth Nandan
For the Respondent:- C.S.C.,J.P.N. Singh

Table of Content
1. notice of no confidence must comply with statutory requirements. (Para 1 , 2)
2. collector lacks discretion to conduct trials or fact-finding in no confidence motions. (Para 3 , 4 , 7)
3. absence of reports from other officials limits action by collector. (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 12 , 14)
4. formal requirements for a no confidence motion include proper notice and signatures. (Para 16 , 17)
5. collector's role is limited to verifying compliance with notice requirements. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
6. impinged findings on disputed facts revoke collector's decision. (Para 29)

JUDGMENT :

(Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. The petitioner, who is an elected member of Kshettra Panchayat constituted under the Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961¹[Act, 1961] delivered in person a written notice of intention to make a motion of no confidence in the Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat in proper form which was signed by more than half of the total number of elected members of Kshettra Panchayat i.e. 70 members out of 100 members, together with a copy of the proposed motion to the Collector, Azamgarh, who had jurisdiction over the Kshettra Panchayat. This notice of no confidence was moved on 7.3.20