Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 139 (ALL)

Murali Devi v. State Of U. P.

2020-01-13

AJIT KUMAR, RAMESH SINHA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents no.1 to 5 and perused the record. 2. By means of this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated 26.12.2019 whereby the District Magistrate, respondent no.2 has fixed 20th January, 2020 for the meeting to be held of the house for consideration of 'no confidence motion' proposal moved by certain members of the house, who according to the notice form majority of the total members of the house which are stated to be 99 and notice is duly served upon the District Magistrate by as many as 67 members. 3. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Magistrate has virtually acted in hot haste while he received the notice on 26.12.2019 itself, he passes an order scheduling meeting on 20th January, 2020. He therefore, argues that the discretion exercised by the District Magistrate suffers from lack of due application of mind in the matter. 4. Per contra, the argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel is that the District Magistrate has exercised the discretion within the scope and ambit of Section 15(2) read with 15(3) of the U.P. Zila Panchayat and Kshetra Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 and in view of the series of judgments of this Court, to quote a few namely, Niyazuddin & 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) (Writ-C No.32482 of 2019 decided on 21.10.2019), Kamal Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & others (Writ-C No.9763 of 2013 decided on 5.10.2013), Smt. Shashi Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No.1994 of 2018, decided on 22.2.2018), Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 13 others (Writ-C No.3982 of 2018), Kusumawati Verma Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others (Writ-C No.22702 of 2018 decided on 5.7.2018) and also of the judgement of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2015 (2) ADJ 325 (FB), not much scope is there available to the District Magistrate to go for a roving enquiry about the correctness of the signatures of the various persons/members who signed the notice. 5. State of U.P. and Others, 2015 (2) ADJ 325 (FB), not much scope is there available to the District Magistrate to go for a roving enquiry about the correctness of the signatures of the various persons/members who signed the notice. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and their arguments across the Bar and having gone through the order of the District Magistrate, we find that the District Magistrate has referred to the total number of members of the house being 99 and then has considered that the notice that has been forwarded to him by as many as 67 members, so according to the District Magistrate there are the requisite numbers within the meaning of Section 15(2) of the Adhiniyam of 1960. From the perusal of the notice, we therefore, do not find any manifest error on the part of the District Magistrate. Even otherwise we are of the considered opinion that if the petitioner enjoys majority of the house, he should not shy away from participating in the meeting scheduled by the District Magistrate. It is settled that if law provides for an action to be taken in a particular manner that should be taken in that manner alone and in exercise of our power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we cannot klip the wings of the motion at this stage. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.