Allahabad High Court
Shiv Shanker Yadav vs State Of U.P. & 4 Others on 25 August, 2014
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44192 of 2014
Petitioner :- Shiv Shanker Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshetresh Chandra Shukla,Manoj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Kshetresh Chandra Shukla learned counsel for the petitioner.
This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of the no confidence motion carried out against the petitioner. Firstly on the ground that the initiation of the motion was absolutely invalid as the notice was interpolated with forged signatures and secondly the meeting was also invalid inasmuch as the said meeting was convened not on the basis of requisite majority. Sri Shukla then contends that a large number of irregularities are clearly evident which demonstrate that the motion was not carried out in accordance with law.
He has invited the attention of the Court to Annexures 10 and 11 to contend that the three member committee which has been constituted after the petitioner's removal has been manipulated to include the respondent no. 5 and therefore this writ petition is also grounded on mala fides.
The allegation which has been made in the writ petition is against the respondent no. 5.
We have heard the learned Standing Counsel and the first ground on which the petition cannot be entertained is that the petitioner has not impleaded the Members who have voted against him in the no confidence motion. The writ petition is therefore deficient in view of the law laid down in the Full Bench decision in the case of Mathura Prasad Tiwari Vs. Assistant District Panchayat Officer and another 1967 R.D. page 17.
Even otherwise Sri Shukla has informed the Court that as per the record there were total 96 members out of whom 84 had participated. 81 members voted in favour of the motion and three against it. Consequently, the motion was carried out against the petitioner by a majority of 81 votes out of 96. The said majority is more than an absolute majority.
The petitioner therefore appears to have been voted out on the basis of a valid no confidence motion.
The argument of Sri Shukla that the notices that were sent and the initiation of the motion was otherwise invalid does not deserve any further consideration inasmuch as the 84 members had participated in the meeting that had been convened but the issue of signatures being forged on such convening stands foreclosed by the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 34915 of 2014 decided on 10.7.2014 that is interpartes.
Consequently, none of the grounds raised by Sri Shukla are worth entertaining the writ petition in the exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
We, accordingly, refuse to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. Rejected.
Order Date :- 25.8.2014
Lalit Shukla
