JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of this Court being Writ Petition No. 62 (M/B) of 2008, Rikh Deo Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors., in which the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
i) ...
ii) ...
iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 24.12.2007 contained as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition.
iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby restraining the respondents from proceeding any meeting for No Confidence against the petitioner.
v) ...
vi) ...
2. The present writ petition has been reported on 19th December 2007 before this Court at Allahabad and has come up for hearing on 4th January 2008. The matter was directed to come up on 7th January 2008 and on 7th January 2008 was directed to come up today at the request of counsel for the parties. Sri P.N. Saxena, Learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 to 7, has informed this Court and has brought to our notice that the petitioner has already filed a writ petition at Lucknow Bench of this Court for the same relief arising out of the same cause of action as the subject matter of present writ petition, namely, convening a meeting for no confidence motion against the petitioner. This writ petition should not be entertained and should be dismissed as the same is barred under Chapter XXII Rule 7 of the Rules of the Court.
3. Sri Pandey, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prayer made in the writ petition filed at Allahabad is different than the prayer made in the writ petition filed at the Lucknow Bench of this Court. He stated that validity of Section 15 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 as amended by U.P. Act No. 44 of 2007 is also challenged by means of this writ petition, therefore, it cannot be said that the present writ petition is barred as submitted by Sri P.N. Saxena.
4. The petitioner, in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, has made submission before this Court in the present writ petition that this is first writ petition preferred by the petitioner before this Court for his grievance and further no other writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner either before this Court or before the Lucknow Bench of this Court and further the petitioner has not received any caveat notice on behalf of respondents or any other person in the matter. This submission made by the petitioner, in view of the facts stated above, is per se incorrect. Therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone as the petitioner has deliberately made false statement before this Court in filing the present writ petition.
5. As already pointed out the effect of the relief asked for by the petitioner is the same, namely, quashing of the notice for convening meeting for consideration of motion for no-confidence against the petitioner. Thus in our opinion this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
6. Even on merits also, if we go through the prayers made by the petitioner in this writ petition, which are quoted below, as the petitioner submits that those affidavit if found false the persons who have filed those affidavits will not vote against the petitioner and the motion will fail:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 2, District Magistrate Azamgarh to hold an enquiry in respect of genuineness of affidavits of 31 members filed by respondents No. 3 to 7 along with application dated 13.12.2007 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition)
(ii) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 not to entertain the application dated 13.12.2007 filed by respondent No. 3 to 7 (Annexre No. 2 to the writ petition) in respect of bringing no-confidence motion against the petitioner without verifying the genuineness and correctness of signatures on affidavits of 31 members of Khsettra Panchayat Block Tahbarpur District Azamgarh filed along with application dated 13.12.2007.
(iii) ...
(iv) ...
7. The petitioner has made a further prayer No. (v) by amending the writ petition. This application for amendment has been allowed by this Court on 4th January 2008. The prayer No. (v) is quoted below:
(v) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of 'certiorari calling for the record of the case and on perusal thereof to quash the notice dated 24.12.2007/22.12.2007 issued by District Magistrate, Azamgarh.
8. The said notice is annexed as Annexure S.A.1 to the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application whereby 10th January 2008 has been fixed as the date for convening meeting of consideration of motion of no-confidence against the petitioner.
9. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct respondent No. 2 as prayed in prayer No. II in the writ petition to hold enquiry in respect of genuineness of affidavits of 31 members filed by respondents No. 3 to 7 along with the application dated 13th December 2007 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) whereby a meeting was sought to be convened for consideration of motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. Even assuming what the petitioner says may be correct, the persons who are supporting the petitioner would not cast their vote against the petitioner in the meeting for consideration of motion of no-confidence against the petitioner scheduled to be held on 10th January 2008. Thus in our view the first prayer cannot be granted to the petitioner.
10. So far as prayer No. II is concerned the same cannot be allowed for the reason that the duty cast on the authority concerned to convene meeting for consideration of motion of no-confidence in case an application as contemplated under Section 15 of U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 is presented before it.
11. The prayer (v) which is added by amendment cannot also be granted to the petitioner because in case the petitioner enjoys support of majority of members, the motion will fail in the meeting scheduled for consideration of motion of no-confidence against the petitioner.
12. For the reasons stated above this writ petition is dismissed.