Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 500 (ALL)

Meenal Singh v. State of U. P.

2018-02-23

ABDUL MOIN, VIKRAM NATH

body2018
JUDGMENT : Abdul Moin, J. 1. Heard Sri. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Sri. Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Anupam Mehrotra along with Sri. Himanshu Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the caveator. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 08.02.2018 issued by the Opp-party No. 2, the true copy of which is contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. (b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Notice, dated 05.02.2018 having been sent to the petitioner containing the impugned order of the District Magistrate dated 08.02.2018, the true copy of which is contained as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. (c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opp. Parties not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner as Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat-Kasmanda, District Sitapur, pursuant to the impugned 08.02.2018 issued by the Opp-party No. 2 as also the impugned notice dated 05.02.2018 contained as Annexure No. and 2 respectively to the writ petition. (d) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. (e) To issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature and manner which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that the petitioner contested the election of Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat Kasmanda, District Sitapur in the year 2015 in which she was declared elected and has been performing her duties since then. The petitioner alleges that there have been attempts to "de-establish' her from her office by pressurising the members of the Kshetra Panchayat Kasmanda, District Sitapur and in this regard the impugned order dated 8.2.2018 has been issued by the Collector, Sitapur calling for a meeting of the Kshetra Panchayat, Kasmanda, District Sitapur to consider the motion of no confidence brought against the petitioner which is alleged to be in violation of Section 15 of the U.P Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act). The petitioner alleges to have received the order dated 8.2.2018 through registered post which has been dispatched on 9.2.2018. The petitioner has also received a copy of the notice dated 5.2.2018 along with notice of no confidence dated Nil. The order dated 8.2.2018 is Annexure-1 to the writ petition while notice dated 5.2.2018 is Annexure-2 to the writ petition which is accompanied by the written notice of intention to make the motion dated 5.2.2018 and the copy of the proposed motion dated Nil. The petitioner contends that the notice for no confidence has been signed by persons who are not even the members of the Kshetra Panchayat. In this regard she has invited the attention of the Court towards a person signing the notice in the name of Shamim Bano. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Collector, Sitapur did not apply his mind while issuing the impugned order dated 8.2.2018 inasmuch as out of 102 members of the Kshetra Panchayat, 68 members have given the notice of no confidence but the serial numbers of the persons signing it do not correspond, apart from the fact that out of the 68 members who are alleged to have signed the motion of no confidence, 29 have given their affidavits denying the same. Copies of the said affidavits are alleged to have been given and served upon the Collector, Sitapur by the petitioner on 17.2.2018 and the copies thereof have been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Thus, the petitioner contends that the Collector, Sitapur should have applied his mind while passing the order dated 8.2.2018 inasmuch as once there was 102 members of which 68 have allegedly signed the notice and subsequently on 17.2.2018, 29 members have given the affidavits denying their signatures then the Collector should have held an inquiry into the matter instead of mechanically issuing the order dated 8.2.2018. In support of the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of U.P and others, reported in 2015(2) UPLBEC 1176 : ( AIR 2015 All 65 ). 4. In support of the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of U.P and others, reported in 2015(2) UPLBEC 1176 : ( AIR 2015 All 65 ). 4. While placing reliance upon the case of Smt. Sheela Devi ( AIR 2015 All 65 ) (supra), the petitioner contends that the Collector ought to have considered the affidavits given by the petitioner dated 17.2.2018 and in case an inquiry would have been conducted by the Collector while passing the order dated 8.2.2018 then the requisite number of members to move the motion of no confidence would have fallen short of the requisite half of the number of members moving the motion and consequently it is apparent that the Collector did not apply his mind while issuing the notice and hence the entire action is vitiated. 5. On the other hand Sri. H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, has contended that the written notice of intention to make the motion dated 5.2.2018 was moved before the Collector upon which the Collector directed the District Panchayat Raj Officer to convene the meeting on 26.2.2018 presided over by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sidhauli, District Sitapur. He further argues that the said notice along with copy of proposed motion was duly signed by 68 members and consequently order, dated 8.2.2018 was issued in this regard. Sri. Srivastava further argues that the entire action is in full consonance to Section 15 of the 1961 Act and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. 6. Sri. Anupam Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the caveator has argued that the action taken by the Collector, Sitapur is in accordance with law. So far as the contention on the part of the petitioner that he had given the affidavits dated 17.2.2018 of 29 persons contending that they never signed the notice of no confidence, Sri. Mehrotra argues that the same cannot be given any credence as firstly the said affidavits are dated 17.2.2018 and the notice for holding the meeting has already been issued on 8.2.2018 apart from the fact that no application has been moved by the petitioner calling upon the Collector to hold an inquiry into the said signatures. Mehrotra argues that the same cannot be given any credence as firstly the said affidavits are dated 17.2.2018 and the notice for holding the meeting has already been issued on 8.2.2018 apart from the fact that no application has been moved by the petitioner calling upon the Collector to hold an inquiry into the said signatures. With regard to Full Bench judgment in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi ( AIR 2015 All 65 ) (supra), Sri. Mehrotra argues that the said case does not talk about conducting of full fledged inquiry, rather leaves the matter to the discretion of the Collector to determine whether the notice fulfills the requirement of being a valid notice under Section 15 of the 1961 Act and once the written notice of intention along with proposed motion were bearing the signatures of majority of members, in this case 68 out of 102, then there was no infirmity in the Collector issuing the impugned order. So far as the dispute raised by learned counsel for the petitioner pertaining to the notice of motion having been signed by one Shamim Bano who is not even member of the Kshetra Panchayat, Sri. Mehrotra contends that the said signature is of Smt. Waseem Bano whose name is indicated at Serial No. 79 in the list annexed by the petitioner himself as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record. 8. The order dated 8.2.2018 has been issued by the Collector, Sitapur fixing the date of 26.2.2018 for consideration of the no confidence motion moved against Smt. Meenal Singh, the petitioner. The impugned order talks about a written notice of intention to make the motion moved by 68 elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat out of 102 members. The said order further states that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sidhauli would be presiding over the meeting to be held on 26.2.2018 to consider the no confidence motion dated 5.2.2018. Annexure-1 to the writ petition is the impugned order dated 8.2.2018 issued by the Collector, Sitapur informing the petitioner about a meeting having been fixed on 26.2.2018 for consideration of the no confidence motion. The said order talks about the proposed motion being annexed with the same. Annexure-1 to the writ petition is the impugned order dated 8.2.2018 issued by the Collector, Sitapur informing the petitioner about a meeting having been fixed on 26.2.2018 for consideration of the no confidence motion. The said order talks about the proposed motion being annexed with the same. The said order is also accompanied by the written notice of intention duly signed by more than 60 persons and is also accompanied by the proposed motion of no confidence which is signed by more than 65 persons. The impugned order dated 8.2.2018 states that there are total of 102 members and accordingly both the notice of intention to make the motion along with the copy of the proposed motion containing the signatures of more than 60 members (68 indicated in the order dated 6.2.2018) thus complies with the requirement of written notice of motion to be signed by at least half of the total number of the elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat. The argument on the part of the petitioner that keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Sheela Devi ( AIR 2015 All 65 ) (supra) it was incumbent upon the Collector to have held an inquiry into the validity and genuineness of the alleged motion of no confidence against the petitioner as the petitioner had served copies of 29 affidavits of 29 members who denied having signed the motion of no confidence on 17.2.2018 is patently misconceived and cannot be accepted inasmuch as the impugned order is dated 8.2.2018 fixing the date of meeting on 26.2.2018 and the Full Bench judgment in the case of Sheela Devi (supra) gives a discretion to the Collector to determine whether the notice fulfills the essential requirement of a valid notice under Section 15(2) of the 1961 Act. The Collector cannot hold a roving inquiry in the matter and in the instant case once both the notice of intention to make the motion along with copy of the proposed motion contained the signatures of more than 60 elected members at the time when the said notice was moved i.e. 5.2.2018, thus, obviously no fault can be found in the order dated 8.2.2018 issued by the Collector. In this regard it would be relevant to quote the Full Bench in the case of Sheela Devi (supra) as under:- "23. In this regard it would be relevant to quote the Full Bench in the case of Sheela Devi (supra) as under:- "23. For these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that where a notice is delivered to the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 15, the Collector has the discretion to determine whether the notice fulfills the essential requirements of a valid notice under subsection (2). However, consistent with the stipulation of time enunciated in sub-section (3) of Section 15 of convening a meeting no later than thirty days from the date of delivery of the notice and of issuing at least a fifteen days' notice to all the elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat, it is not open to the Collector to launch a detailed evidentiary enquiry into the validity of the signatures which are appended to the notice. Where a finding in regard to the validity of the signatures can only be arrived at in an enquiry on the basis of evidence adduced in the course of an evidentiary hearing at a full-fledged trial, such an enquiry would be outside the purview of Section 15. The Collector does not exercise the powers of a court upon receipt of a notice and when he transmits the notice for consideration at a meeting of the elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat. Hence, it would not be open to the Collector to resolve or enter findings of fact on seriously disputed questions such as forgery, fraud and coercion......" 9. Thus it is apparent that the impugned order dated 8.2.2018 issued by the Collector is in full consonance with the provisions of Section 15 of the 1961 Act and the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi ( AIR 2015 All 65 ) (supra) and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. Consequently the writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.