Allahabad High Court
Shiv Shankar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 13 September, 2018
Bench: Shashi Kant Gupta, Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5039 of 2018
Petitioner :- Shiv Shankar Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Mishra,S.K. Varma,Siddharth Shankar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Kumar Srivastav
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order/ notice dated 19.01.2018 issued by the respondent no. 2 after summoning the original records from the respondents in order to meet end of justice;
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus for issuing appropriate direction to the respondents and all concerned not to resort the meeting on 12.02.2018 to consider the proposal and motion of no confidence against the petitioner pertaining to Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat Dobhi, District Jaunpur, pursuant to the order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 to meet the end of justice."
Perusal of the record shows that petitioner was elected as Block Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat Dobhi, District Jaunpur by members of Kshetra Panchayat i.e. Block Development Committee. A written notice was filed before the District Magistrate enclosing the copy of proposed motion expressing want of confidence against petitioner-Pramukh of the aforesaid Kshetra Panchayat. On the basis of said written notice, District Magistrate convened a meeting of Kshetra Panchayat on 12.02.2018 for consideration of no confidence motion.
The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of Section 15(2) has not been complied with and as such the proceedings for convening the meeting is vitiated. He further stated that memo of proposed motion contains the signature of only one member and does not contained the signatures of half of the elected members of Kshetra Panchayat and it has been further submitted that written notice was not delivered to the petitioner.
In pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 06.09.2018, the original records produced before this Court, we have gone through the same, perusal of which reveals that the written notice expressing want of confidence was signed by 63 members out of total elected members of Kshetra Panchayat. Copy of written notice, which was signed by 63 members, was also accompanied by copy of proposed motion. For ready reference, sub-clause (2) of Section 15 is extracted herein below:
"15(2) A written notice of intention to make the motion in such form as may be prescribed, signed by at least half of the total number of [elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat) for the time being together with a copy of the proposed motion, shall be delivered in person, by any one of the members signing the notice, to the Collector having jurisdiction over the Kshetra Panchayat."
Perusal of aforesaid provision clearly shows that half of the total elected members have to sign on the written notice of intention to make the motion in the form, as prescribed, and the copy of proposed motion has to be enclosed along with the written notice. The words and expression 'together with a copy of the proposed motion' means only a copy of motion is to accompany the notice, that is all. There is nothing in the provision to discern that legislature intended the motion to be also signed by such number of elected members. Thus, in our considered opinion the proposed motion need not be signed by half of the elected members and there will be no procedural flaw if it is signed by one member only. Now, perusal of record clearly shows that written notice was signed by more than half of the elected members and it was accompanied with the copy of proposed motion signed by Vidyawati, one of the elected members. Thus, perusal of record and so also it is reflected from the order of the District Magistrate dated 19.01.2018 that having received notice as per procedure a meeting was directed to be held on 12.02.2018 for consideration of proposal of no confidence against the President of Kshetra Panchayat Dobhi well within 30 days of receiving any notice by the District Magistrate.
In view of the above submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the provision of Section 15(2) has not been complied with and the contention of the petitioner falls flat on the ground. Record clearly shows that all the 63 members have singed the notice in support of proposed no confidence motion which was also enclosed with the notice. Thus, the proposed motion accompanied the notice and both are in prescribed form. We, therefore, do not see any illegality or irregularity in the proceedings whereby the meeting was convened by the District Magistrate for consideration of motion of no confidence. No other point has been argued.
In the result, the petition stands dismissed and the interim order dated 08.02.2018, whereby, it was directed that the meeting scheduled to consider the proposal of No Confidence Motion to take place on 12.02.2018 may go on, but the result of the same shall not be declared till the next date of listing, is hereby discharged. The concerned authority is directed to declare the result forthwith of the meeting dated 12.02.2018 to consider the proposal of no confidence motion against the petitioner.
Order Date :- 13.9.2018
IrfanUddin
