Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1315 (ALL)

Vinod Kumar v. State of U. P.

2018-05-23

ABDUL MOIN, VIKRAM NATH

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Virendra Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Mohammad Abid Ali, learned counsel representing the intervenor-Amrendra Kumar Singh. 2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 9th February, 2018 and 13th February, 2018 passed by the District Magistrate-Sitapur filed as Annexures-1 & 2 to the petition, whereby the District Magistrate-Sitapur has directed for convening a meeting of 'No Confidence' against the petitioner fixing 5th March, 2018. When this petition was filed on 28th February, 2018 an interim order was passed directing the matter to be listed on 7th March, 2018 and in the meantime, it was provided that the meeting to consider 'No Confidence Motion' would be convened but result thereof would not be executed till the next date of listing. 3. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the State-respondents along with an application. A further application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. has been filed by one Amrendra Kumar Singh and also an application for impleading him as respondent No. 5 has also been filed. Rejoinder-affidavit has been filed as a reply to the counter-affidavit and also objections to the application under Section 340, Cr.P.C.? 4. Earlier also a notice for convening a meeting of 'No Confidence' was given by the members on which the Collector, Sitapur vide order dated 18th December, 2017 had directed for convening a meeting on 23rd January, 2018. The said proceedings were challenged by way of Misc. Bench No. 1061 of 2018, apparently on the ground that the meeting has been fixed beyond period of 30 days which was not permissible under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 and would be violative of Section 15(3)(i). The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 19th January, 2018. However, while allowing the writ petition since the meeting was not convened and prior to that the proceedings have been quashed, this Court had provided that it would be open to the members to move a fresh motion which was to be considered in accordance to law without benefit of protection available under Section 15(12) of the 1961 Act. 5. However, while allowing the writ petition since the meeting was not convened and prior to that the proceedings have been quashed, this Court had provided that it would be open to the members to move a fresh motion which was to be considered in accordance to law without benefit of protection available under Section 15(12) of the 1961 Act. 5. It appears that a fresh motion for convening a 'No Confidence' meeting against the petitioner was moved on 9th February, 2018. On the same date, the District Magistrate-Sitapur made an endorsement directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar to preside over the meeting to be held on 5th March, 2018. Further, the District Magistrate, Sitapur passed another order dated 13th February, 2018 again reiterating the date of the meeting on 5th March, 2018 to be held at 11.00 a.m. at the Office of the Kshettra Panchayat-Alia, District-Sitapur. It is these two orders which are under challenge in the present petition. The first ground taken by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the written notice given by the members which is not signed by more than half of the total members and was only signed by 6 members, as such, was not valid and no action could have been taken to the same, such averments have been made in paragraph-2 of the petition. Reference has been made to Annexure-1 which is a one page document addressed to the Collector, Sitapur stating that it was a notice for no 'No Confidence' and signed by 6 members. The second ground raised by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner was to the effect that once an order was passed on 9th February, 2018 to convene the meeting on 5th March, 2018 there was no occasion for the District Magistrate-Sitapur to pass a fresh order on 13th February, 2018. 6. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner second order was passed only to cover up certain manipulations made in the records. 6. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner second order was passed only to cover up certain manipulations made in the records. Insofar as the first argument is concerned regarding the written notice signed by more than half of the total members of the Kshettra Panchayat, we may point out that said argument does not hold any merit inasmuch as the requirement under law is that the motion of 'No Confidence' which is basic proposal has to be signed by more than half of the total members and the written notice is to be delivered by anyone of the members signing the notice. In the present case, we find that Annexure-3 to the petition is the motion which is duly signed by 72 members and is annexed as part of Annexure-3. In all there are 95 members in which 72 members of the motion would be due compliance of the provisions contained in Section 15(2) of the 1961 Act. The said motion was part of the notice issued to the members intimating that 5th March, 2018 is the date fixed and also indicating the time and place where the meeting was to take place. 7. In view of the above, the first submission made on behalf of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 8. Coming to the second submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the second order dated 13th February, 2018 again mentioning the date for convening of the 'No Confidence' meeting on 5th March, 2018 having been done to cover up certain manipulations and there was no need at all to issue the second order, we may record that in the first order of 9th March, 2018, the District Magistrate had only made a small endorsement requiring that Sub-Divisional Magistrate-Sadar would preside over the meeting on 5th March, 2018 and that notices may be issued. However in the subsequent order dated 13th February, 2018, the District Magistrate also provided the time of the meeting and also the place of the meeting which part is not incorporated in the order dated 9th February, 2018. As such, there was requirement of the passing of the second order indicating the details which was not incorporated in the first order dated 9th February, 2018. 9. As such, there was requirement of the passing of the second order indicating the details which was not incorporated in the first order dated 9th February, 2018. 9. Insofar as allegations relating to manipulation of record by the Office of the District Magistrate-Sitapur is concerned, we may record here that the application filed under Section 340, Cr.P.C. alleges certain manipulations by the petitioner and mis-representation before the Court. 10. In view of the counter allegations being made against each other, we are not going into that controversy but we are convinced that this petition on both the counts cannot be sustained. 11. Petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel has produced the original records which we have perused and the records returned to Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.