Back
2018 Supreme(UK) 177
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
Netra Singh Kunwar – Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2741 of 2017
Decided On : 20-02-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. A.K. Joshi and Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocates, present
For the Respondents:Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel
For the Caveator :Mr. C.S. Rawat, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notice requirements for adjourned meetings under Section 63(5) of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016 are directory, and substantial compliance with the procedure prescribed is sufficient.
Headnote:
No Confidence Motion - Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016 - Section 63(2), Section 63(5)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Block Pramukh, challenged the proceedings for considering a 'no confidence' motion against him. The petitioner contended that the notice for the adjourned meeting was not given in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the notice given to the petitioner was sufficient and met the requirement of Section 63(5) of the Act. The Court held that substantial compliance of Section 63(5) had been made, and there was no reason to interfere in the matter. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the compliance of the notice requirements for the adjourned meeting as per Section 63(5) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Section 63(5) of the Act, regarding the procedure for giving notice for adjourned meetings, is directory, and substantial compliance with the procedure prescribed is sufficient. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the notice was to inform the members about the proposed meeting, and the form of notice and manner of giving notice had not been prescribed in the statute.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed by the Court.
Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
1. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-
“(i). Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by Chief Development Officer, Pithoragarh and order dated 13.10.2017 issued by Block Development Officer, Dharchula as well as notice dated 12.10.2017 issued by Block Development Officer, Dharchula.
(ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the proceeding of no confidence stood rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
3. Petitioner was elected as the Block Pramukh of Dharchula Block, District Pithoragarh in the year 2014. On 16.09.2017, a notice signed by more than 50% of the members of Kshetra Panchayat was presented before the Chief Development Officer, Pithoragarh seeking a motion of ‘no confidence’ against the petitioner, in terms of Section 63(1) of the Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Pursuant to the said notice, Chief Development Officer issued an order dated 18.09.2017, whereby he directed that meeting for considering no confidence motion would be held on 12.10.2017 and shall be presided by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pithoragarh. Copy of the said order was sent to the petitioner as well as all members of the Kshettra Panchahyat.
4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pithoragarh, who was to preside the meeting for considering no confidence motion, issued a letter on 12.10.2017 to the Chief Development Officer expressing his inability to preside the meeting on account of ill-health and adjourned the meeting to 05.11.2017 in terms of Section 63(5) of the Act.
5. In view of adjournment of the meeting by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Chief Development Officer, Pithoragarh issued one letter on 12.10.2017 to the District Panchayat Raj Officer directing him to personally inform all members of the Kshetra Panchayat about the next date of meeting i.e. 05.11.2017 and also to read the text of the letter in the house. Copy of the said letter was sent to Block Development Officer, Dharchula with a direction to immediately inform all members regarding the decision and also to serve individual notice regarding next date of meeting upon all members.
6. Pursuant to the direction issued by Chief Development Officer, Block Development Officer issued one notice dated 12.10.2017, which was sent to petitioner and all members of Kshettra Panchayat through special messenger as well as by registered post. The said letter is on record as Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit. Thereafter on 13.10.2017, Block Development Officer, Dharchula issued another letter to all Village Panchayat Development Officers with a direction to immediately give notice regarding next date of meeting to all members and submit compliance report on or before 16.10.2017 and in case of refusal on the part of a member to acknowledge receipt of the notice, the notice may be pasted on the main gate of his residence, in the presence of two public representatives.
7. The present writ petition was filed on 03.11.2017 i.e. two days before the adjourned meeting scheduled for considering ‘no confidence motion’. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that on 12.10.2017, he along with all members was present in the meeting hall, but due to absence of Presiding Officer, motion of no confidence could not be considered. Petitioner admits that Block Development Officer had issued one notice dated 12.10.2017 and subsequent letter dated 13.10.2017. However, his contention is that the letter dated 13.10.2017 was served upon him only on 27.10.2017.
8. On these facts, petitioner contends that the notice regarding adjourned meeting scheduled for 05.11.2017 was not given in terms of Section 63(5) of the Act, therefore, the entire proceeding is vitiated and the meeting, if any, convened for considering no confidence motion is non-est in the eyes of law. According to the petitioner, said notice is unsustainabl
