Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25886 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt.Arunlata Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikeya Saran Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
This writ petition has been, inter alia, filed for the following reliefs;
"I. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the record and quashing the undated written notice/letter brought against the petitioner by Respondent No. 4 (Annexure No. 3);
II. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned notice issued by Respondent No. 2 on 11.07.2018 (Annexure No. 2) convening a meeting of the members of Kshettra Panchayat Kuraoli, District Mainpuri;
III. Issue a writ, order or direction of appropriate nature restraining Respondent No. 2 from interfering in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner as Block Pramukh of the Block/Kshettra Panchayat Kuraoli, District Mainpuri;"
In substance, this writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding initiated under Section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 including the order and notice dated 11.7.2018 issued by the District Magistrate/Collector, Mainpuri.
The petitioner is the Block Pramukh of Block Kuraoli Kshettra Samiti, Mainpuri. From the perusal of record it appears that a written notice carrying the signatures of 50 elected members of Kshettra Panchayat Kuraoli supported by their affidavits has been delivered to the District Magistrate/Collector, Mainpuri for convening a meeting of the concerned Kshettra Panchayat for the consideration of no confidence motion against the elected Pramukh.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that out of the 50 members of Kshettra Panchayat, Kuraoli signatures of most of the members are forged/fabricated and obtained by coercion, regarding which they have filed their affidavits before the Collector, Mainpuri and the Collector, Mainpuri without making any enquiry with regard to genuineness or veracity of the signatures endorsed by the said 50 members of Kshettra Panchayat, Kuraoli proceeded to fix the date for convening a meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat for the consideration of no confidence motion against the Block Pramukh.
Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 has placed the decision of the full bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi and others versus State of U.P. and others, 2015 (2) ADJ 325 (FB), where in paragraph 15 it has been held as follows:-
"In our view, both the decisions of the majority as well as the minority essentially follow the same line and the area of dissent is rather narrow. Both the judgments of the majority as well as the minority postulate that the Collector ought not to make a detailed enquiry where serious allegations of fraud, coercion and duress are required to be resolved particularly having regard to the fact that a meeting had to be convened as soon as possible. The area of divergence is only this that whereas the majority left it open to the Collector to determine whether and if so what enquiry should be held, the view of the dissenting judge was that the Collector should hold an enquiry so long as a detailed enquiry into serious questions of coercion or fraud was not involved. In either view of the matter and since we are bound by the judgment of the Full Bench, the law on the subject is thus clear. The Collector, in the course of exercising the power which is conferred upon him, ought not to enquire into seriously disputed questions of fact involving issues of fraud, coercion and duress. Moreover, the Collector must have the discretion in each case of determining on the basis of a summary proceeding whether the essential requirements of a valid notice of an intention to move a motion of no confidence have been fulfilled. Where in the course of the summary enquiry, it appears to the Collector that the written notice does not comply with the requirements of law, the Collector would be within his power in determining as to whether all the required conditions have been fulfilled, as enunciated in sub-section (2) of Section 15. Whether the Collector in a given case has transgressed his power is separate issue on which judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution would be available. However, we expressly clarify that we are not laying down a detailed and exhaustive enumeration of the circumstances in which the Collector can determine the validity of a notice furnished under Section (2) or those in which he can make a limited enquiry which, as we have held, he is entitled and competent to make. Ultimately, each case depends upon its own facts and it for the Collector to determine as to whether the objections raised before him are outside the scope of the limited inquiry which he can make upon notice of an intent to move a motion of no confidence if it is submitted to him together with a notice of no confidence."
Perusal of the aforesaid observations of the full bench of this Court clearly show that 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.
In view of the above, we do not see any justification to interfere in the matter.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 vinay