Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 908 (ALL)

NAUBAT RAM v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-03-18

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 and Shri S.M.A.Abdi appearing for respondent No. 6. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 15.2.2008 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 5, Assistant Development Officer, (Panchayat), Khurja, District Bulandshahar declaring that no confidence motion moved against the Pradhan, respondent No. 6 in the meeting of the Gram Sabha held on 15.2.2008 failed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of 1331 electors present in the meeting held on 15.2.2008 to consider the no confidence motion, 866 electors voted in favour of the motion which was one vote short of the requisite two-third majority and had the 33 votes which were wrongly cancelled were taken into consideration, the motion of no confidence would have smoothly passed. 4. Shri Abdi learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submitted that no confidence motion moved against the respondent No. 6 in the meeting of Gram Sabha held on 15.2.2008 had failed not only for want of requisite majority but also for the reason that the meeting convened for considering the motion of no confidence on 15.2.2008 itself was illegal. 5. Shri Abdi further submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has concealed the material fact that meeting for considering the no confidence motion brought against the respondent No. 6 was initially convened for 8.2.2008 but in the said meeting the motion could not be taken up for want of quorum and hence no meeting for removal of respondent No. 6 could have been convened on 15.2.2008 in view of the specific bar stipulated under Section 14(3) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. He further submitted that after the no confidence motion could not be taken up in the meeting convened on 8.2.2008 due to lack of quorum, a note in this regard was recorded in the minutes of the meeting and the meeting was adjourned. Thereafter the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer illegally and without any authority made an endorsement at the bottom of the minutes of the meeting that the meeting could not proceed as the electors had become angry and the situation had gone out of control. 6. Thereafter the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer illegally and without any authority made an endorsement at the bottom of the minutes of the meeting that the meeting could not proceed as the electors had become angry and the situation had gone out of control. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents submitted that no meeting of the Gram Sabha was held on 8.2.2008 hence the prohibition stipulated under Section 14 (3) of the Act was not attracted to the facts of the present case. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused averments made in the writ petition, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits filed on behalf of the parties and as well as impugned order. The two issues which arise for consideration before this Court in this writ petition inter alia are that whether the meeting convened for taking up the no confidence motion against the respondent No. 6 on 15.2.2008 was itself illegal in view of the grounds pleaded by respondent No. 6 and that whether the 33 votes which were in favour of the motion as alleged by the petitioner had been wrongly cancelled. The second issue will require consideration only if the first issue is decided in favour of the petitioner. Record shows that a meeting for considering the no confidence motion against the said Pradhan, respondent No. 6, was convened on 8.2.2008. However, the said meeting could not be held due to lack of quorum. This fact is borne out from the perusal of the copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 8.2.2008 copy whereof has been filed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 6. 8. Section 14 (3) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act clearly provides that where a motion of no confidence brought against a Pradhan is not taken up due to lack of quorum, no meeting for removal of the same Pradhan can be convened before the expiry of one year from the said meeting. In the present case, although the motion of no confidence could not be taken up in the meeting of Gram Panchayat held on 8.2.2008 due to lack of quorum, yet a meeting for considering the motion against the same Pradhan, respondent No. 6 was convened for 15.2.2008 i.e. within a week of the first meeting. In the present case, although the motion of no confidence could not be taken up in the meeting of Gram Panchayat held on 8.2.2008 due to lack of quorum, yet a meeting for considering the motion against the same Pradhan, respondent No. 6 was convened for 15.2.2008 i.e. within a week of the first meeting. Thus, the meeting of Gram Pradhan convened for 15.2.2008 for considering the no confidence motion against the petitioner was illegal and clearly prohibited by Section 14(3) of the Act and hence whether the no confidence motion was passed against the respondent No. 6 in the said meeting or not becomes wholly immaterial. Since this first issue has been decided against the petitioner, there is no necessity to examine the second issue. The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. ———— [ 2010(5) ADJ 302 ] ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT BEFORE : BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J. NAUBAT RAM ...…Petitioner Versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .....Respondents (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12382 of 2008, decided on 18th March, 2010) U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947—Section 14(3)—Removal—No confidence motion—Post of Pradhan—Meeting convened on 8.2.2008, however, the said meeting could not be held due to lack of quorum—In term of Section 14(3) of Act whereas motion of no confidence brought against a Pradhan is not taken up due to lack of quorum—No meeting for removal of the same Pradhan can be convened before expiry of one year from the said meeting—In present case, although the motion of no confidence could not be taken up in meeting of Gram Panchayat held on said date due to lack of Quorum—Second meeting convened for said purpose within a week of first meeting—Impugned order illegal. [Paras 7 and 8] Result; Petition Dismissed. Counsel : B.N. Upadhyay and B.N. Pathak for Petitioner; C.S.C.,S.M.A. Abdy for the Respondents. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 and Shri S.M.A.Abdi appearing for respondent No. 6. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 15.2.2008 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 5, Assistant Development Officer, (Panchayat), Khurja, District Bulandshahar declaring that no confidence motion moved against the Pradhan, respondent No. 6 in the meeting of the Gram Sabha held on 15.2.2008 failed. 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 15.2.2008 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 5, Assistant Development Officer, (Panchayat), Khurja, District Bulandshahar declaring that no confidence motion moved against the Pradhan, respondent No. 6 in the meeting of the Gram Sabha held on 15.2.2008 failed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of 1331 electors present in the meeting held on 15.2.2008 to consider the no confidence motion, 866 electors voted in favour of the motion which was one vote short of the requisite two-third majority and had the 33 votes which were wrongly cancelled were taken into consideration, the motion of no confidence would have smoothly passed. 4. Shri Abdi learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submitted that no confidence motion moved against the respondent No. 6 in the meeting of Gram Sabha held on 15.2.2008 had failed not only for want of requisite majority but also for the reason that the meeting convened for considering the motion of no confidence on 15.2.2008 itself was illegal. 5. Shri Abdi further submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has concealed the material fact that meeting for considering the no confidence motion brought against the respondent No. 6 was initially convened for 8.2.2008 but in the said meeting the motion could not be taken up for want of quorum and hence no meeting for removal of respondent No. 6 could have been convened on 15.2.2008 in view of the specific bar stipulated under Section 14(3) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. He further submitted that after the no confidence motion could not be taken up in the meeting convened on 8.2.2008 due to lack of quorum, a note in this regard was recorded in the minutes of the meeting and the meeting was adjourned. Thereafter the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer illegally and without any authority made an endorsement at the bottom of the minutes of the meeting that the meeting could not proceed as the electors had become angry and the situation had gone out of control. 6. Thereafter the Assistant Panchayat Raj Officer illegally and without any authority made an endorsement at the bottom of the minutes of the meeting that the meeting could not proceed as the electors had become angry and the situation had gone out of control. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents submitted that no meeting of the Gram Sabha was held on 8.2.2008 hence the prohibition stipulated under Section 14 (3) of the Act was not attracted to the facts of the present case. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused averments made in the writ petition, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits filed on behalf of the parties and as well as impugned order. The two issues which arise for consideration before this Court in this writ petition inter alia are that whether the meeting convened for taking up the no confidence motion against the respondent No. 6 on 15.2.2008 was itself illegal in view of the grounds pleaded by respondent No. 6 and that whether the 33 votes which were in favour of the motion as alleged by the petitioner had been wrongly cancelled. The second issue will require consideration only if the first issue is decided in favour of the petitioner. Record shows that a meeting for considering the no confidence motion against the said Pradhan, respondent No. 6, was convened on 8.2.2008. However, the said meeting could not be held due to lack of quorum. This fact is borne out from the perusal of the copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 8.2.2008 copy whereof has been filed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 6. 8. Section 14 (3) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act clearly provides that where a motion of no confidence brought against a Pradhan is not taken up due to lack of quorum, no meeting for removal of the same Pradhan can be convened before the expiry of one year from the said meeting. In the present case, although the motion of no confidence could not be taken up in the meeting of Gram Panchayat held on 8.2.2008 due to lack of quorum, yet a meeting for considering the motion against the same Pradhan, respondent No. 6 was convened for 15.2.2008 i.e. within a week of the first meeting. In the present case, although the motion of no confidence could not be taken up in the meeting of Gram Panchayat held on 8.2.2008 due to lack of quorum, yet a meeting for considering the motion against the same Pradhan, respondent No. 6 was convened for 15.2.2008 i.e. within a week of the first meeting. Thus, the meeting of Gram Pradhan convened for 15.2.2008 for considering the no confidence motion against the petitioner was illegal and clearly prohibited by Section 14(3) of the Act and hence whether the no confidence motion was passed against the respondent No. 6 in the said meeting or not becomes wholly immaterial. Since this first issue has been decided against the petitioner, there is no necessity to examine the second issue. The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. ————