Sunita Sharma vs State Of U.P. & 3 Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 3965 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39862 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Sunita Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Dharam Pal Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.R. Chauhan
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Heard Sri Dharam Pal Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Smt. Manju R. Chauhan for the caveator - Manju Lata.

The petitioner is the elected Chairperson of the Kshetra Panchayat, Arniya, District Bulandshahr. A no confidence motion was initiated against her which came to be challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 37050 of 2014. The challenge succeeded on the ground that there was an absence of 15 days of clear notice as required under Section 15(3)(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961. The writ petition was allowed and the proceedings were quashed.

The net result of the said judgment was that since the convening of the meeting was quashed it was open to the members to convene a fresh meeting in accordance with Section 15 of the Act.

The District Magistrate, Bulandshahr has passed an order for convening a fresh meeting on the basis of the old notice itself fixing 16th August, 2014.

The contention of Sri D.P. Singh is that this cannot be done and a fresh notice has ensued with a clear stipulation that the meeting shall be held not later than 30 days of the date of the notice.

In the instant case, the notice is dated 27th June, 2014, and therefore, the meeting could have been convened prior to 27th July, 2014. The said date has already passed by and as such any future date cannot be fixed under the old notice. The District Magistrate, therefore, has committed an error by proceeding on the strength of old notice dated 27.6.2014.

Smt. Manju R. Chauhan contends that the writ petition does not implead the members in this writ petition and therefore it is not maintainable. 

We are unable to agree, in view of the conclusions drawn hereinabove that the order passed by the District Magistrate is ex-facie illegal and in teeth of the statutory provision of Section 15. 

Smt. Manju R. Chauhan could not successfully defend the impugned order nor could the learned Standing Counsel point out differently.

Consequently, on the aforesaid legal position that emerges the impugned order dated 26th July, 2014 is unsustainable and is hereby quashed without prejudice to the rights of the members to bring about a fresh motion in accordance with law.

The writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 4.8.2014

Sahu