The Collector has sole jurisdiction to assess no confidence motions without delegating authority to others and must act within statutory timelines to validate signatures.

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petition, as initially framed, sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, District-Kushinagar, which is based on an inquiry report. Subsequently, by an amendment, an order passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Kushinagar on 12.11.2024 has also been challenged. This order has been passed during the pendency of the instant writ petition.

2. The petition has been filed by two petitioners who claim to be elected members of Block Dudhahi, District-Kushinagar, having been elected in the election held in the year 2021. Respondent No. 4 was elected as Block Pramukh, Block Dudhahi. The strength of elected members of the Block Development Council is stated to be 139. Out of these, 101 members are stated to have moved a notice of no confidence in the prescribed pro-forma along with a notary affidavit on 12.08.2024. The notice of no confidence motion was moved before the Collector, as provided under Section 15 (2) of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961. [Act, 1961]

3. When no order was passed by the Collector, a petition, being Writ-C No. 29128 of 2024, was filed before this Court whereupon on 03.09.2024, learned Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions. When the matter was taken up on 4.9.2024, a statement was made by the learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions received, that the notice for no confidence motion has been rejected by an order dated 21.8.2024. The said writ petition was, therefore, dismissed as infructuous.

4. It appears that on receipt of certain affidavits by persons saying that their signatures on notice of no confidence were forged, a Committee was constituted by the Collector to look into the allegations.

5. The order of 21.08.2024, initially impugned in the writ petition, was an order passed consequent to the report of this Committee, which rejected the notice of no confidence on the ground that it was not maintainable as it was not in accordance with the relevant rules.

6. On the petition being filed, on 04.10.2024, a detailed order was passed noting the contention of the respective counsel for the parties and directing the Collector to file his personal affidavit.

7. A personal affidavit of the Collector was filed on the next date.

8. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up on 13.11.2024, the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the Collector was produced by the learned Standing Counsel. It is this order which has been subjected to challenge by means of an amendment to the writ petition.

9. It has been submitted by Shri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, that the order dated 21.08.2024 of District Panchayat Raj Officer, which is based upon a report of the Committee constituted by Collector, rejects the notice of no confidence on the ground that several signatures thereon were stated to be forged. The Inquiry Committee in its report dated 17.08.2024 found that there were affidavits of 48 members stating that they were shown as signatories to the notice of no confidence, fraudulently and by forging their signatures thereon. Consequently and since the signatures of less than half of the members of the Council were found to be genuine, the show-cause notice was rejected.

10. It is