Raghuraji Devi And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. & 4 Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 6509 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 21
 
AFR
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 49958 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Raghuraji Devi And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akanksha Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.,M.C. Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Heard Sri Prem Prakash Yadav learned counsel for the petitioners and  Sri Manik Chand Yadav for the respondent no. 5.

This is a dispute with regard to the proposal of a no confidence motion against the petitioner no. 1 who is the Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat Dhanupur District Allahabad. The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the members of the said Kshettra Panchayat.

The present writ petition has been filed on several grounds including the ground that the notice as required under Section 15 (2) of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 has not been served on the members with 15 days clear notice as mandatorily required.

Sri Prem Prakash Yadav has relied on the decision in the case of Kamla Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2014 (2) A.D.J. page 327. The contention is that even though the notice is dated 6.9.2014 yet the same has been dispatched by post admittedly on 8.9.2014 fixing 23.9.2014 as the date of the meeting.

The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Sri Bal Kirshna was called upon to receive instructions on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 on the short point about the allegations made in the petition vis-a-vis the date of dispatch of the notice by the District Magistrate.

The instructions have been obtained by Sri Bal Kirshna and submissions have been advanced that the dispatch of the notice on 8.9.2014 by post is admitted to the respondents even though the Collector had prepared it on 6.9.2014.

On a pure and simple calculation excluding the date of dispatch namely 8.9.2014 and the date of meeting dated 23.9.2014, it is clear that only 14 days notice is available and therefore it violates the mandatory provision of 15 days clear notice as is evident from the law that has been observed by us in the decision of Kamla Devi (Supra).

Consequently, the impugned notice is invalid as 15 days clear notice excluding both the days as required under law is not established. The notice dated 6.9.2014 as dispatched on 8.9.2014 is therefore quashed. The writ petition is allowed leaving it open to the District Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law as and when such intention is moved before him.

Order Date :- 16.9.2014

Lalit Shukla