Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11384 of 2018 Petitioner :- Harish Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan,Anil Bhushan (Sr. Advocate) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Damodar Pandey
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Adarsh Bhushan appearing for the petitioner; Shri M.D. Singh "Shekhar", learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Damodar Pandey appearing for the respondent no. 3 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State- respondents no. 1 and 2.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 19.3.2018 fixing a date to convene the meeting of no confidence motion against the petitioner who is a Chairman (Adhyaksha) of the Zila Panchayat, Kushinagar. The ground for the challenge is that District Magistrate has fixed the date for convening the meeting of no confidence motion without inquiry into the genuineness of signatures on the motion of no confidence.
The facts of the case are that on 15.3.2018 the motion for no confidence was tabled signed by 39 members out of 68, total strength of member of the Zila Panchayat, Kushinagar. The claim of the petitioner is that on the same date in the evening 38 members of the Zila Panchayat, Kushinagar presented an application before the District Magistrate expressing their confidence in the current Chairman (Adhyaksha) of the Zila Panchayat, Kushinagar. It is further submitted that thereafter various affidavits were moved with the signature denying signature of the persons on the motion so tabled on 15.3.2018.
It is to be noted that before these affidavits could be presented, the District Magistrate on 19.3.2018 had already fixed the meeting for no confidence to be held on 9.4.2018.
The main thrust of argument against no confidence motion by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once on 15.3.2018 itself when the no confidence motion was moved before the District Magistrate, 38 members moved an application showing confidence in the Adhyaksha. The District Magistrate, ought not to have proceeded to convene the meeting of no confidence motion on 9.4.2018 by order dated 19.3.2018.
We have gone through the provisions of Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, which dealing with the motion of no confidence. Section 28(3) prescribes as follows :
"(3) The Collector shall thereupon –
(i) convene a meeting of the 1[Zila Panchayat] for the consideration of the motion at the office of the 1[Zila Panchayat] on the date appointed by him, which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) was delivered to him ; and
(ii) give to the 1[elected members] notice of not less than fifteen days of such meeting in such manner as prescribed."
It is to be noted that all that is required is that the Collector has to be prima facie satisfied that at least half of the elected members must have signed the no confidence motion and once the motion is moved, the Collector shall convene the meeting for consideration of the said motion and, therefore, on 15.3.2018, 39 members have presented a motion for no confidence and the District Magistrate thereafter on 19.3.2018 fixed the date of meeting on 9.4.2018 does not appear to be erroneous in any manner. It is further to be noted that in the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others and other connected matters reported in (2015) 2 UPLBEC 1176 while interpreting the similar provision for notice of motion of no confidence in Pramukh of a kshetra panchayat while interpreting Section 15 of the 1961 Act, which is similar to the provisions of Section 28 of the 1961 Act for notice of motion of no confidence in Adhyaksha of zila panchayat, has held that all the enquiries that are required to be done by the District Magistrate upon motion of no confidence are that the signatures on the motion of no confidence are not of any imposter or of dead person. Whether the same has been obtained by fraud or duress is not a question to be decided by the Collector as that would require a detail evidentiary inquiry. That apart nowhere in the writ petition the petitioner has claimed that the signatures on the motion have been obtained by fraud or duress.
That being the case, once the motion has been tabled by at least half of the members of the Zila Panchayat, the District Magistrate has rightly convened the meeting. As such no interference is called for.
The writ petition is misconceived and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Sunil Kr. Gupta
(Salil Kumar Rai, J.) (Abhinava Upadhya, J.)