Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
1. Heard Sri K.M. Dubey and Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for respondents; and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi and Sri Vikas Tiwari, Advocates for Caveator, namely, Kesar son of Ram Karan.
2. Learned counsels appearing for respondents and caveator-applicant stated at the Bar that they do not propose to file any counter affidavit since the issue raised is purely a question of law and they would advance oral submissions which may be considered by the Court. It is in these circumstances and as requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, the Court proceed to decide the matter finally at this stage under the Rules of this Court on the basis of record of writ petition.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by notice dated 18.06.2012 issued by Collector Jalaun at Orai convening a meeting for considering a no confidence motion against petitioner received on 23.05.2012 fixing the date of meeting on 10.07.2012 by him.
4. The submission is that the date of meeting having been fixed beyond 30 days from the date of notice for no confidence received by Collector, such meeting is in the teeth of Section 15(3)(i) of U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1961") and is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
5. It is not disputed that petitioner is an elected Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat Kadaura, District Jalaun. Some Members of Kshettra Panchayat proposed a no confidence motion against petitioner and delivered the notice upon Collector, Jalaun on 23.05.2012. The Collector issued notice dated 03.06.2012 convening meeting for considering no confidence motion on 19.06.2012. Though the notice issued by Collector was dated 03.06.2012, but in fact it was issued for onward communication to post office under registered post on 06.06.2012. The notice was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 30211 of 2012 on the ground that having been placed in the postal service on 06.06.2012 the notice convening meeting does not give 15 days of notice as contemplated in sub-section 3(ii) of Section 15 of Act, 1961. The submission prevailed with this Court in view of admitted fact with regard to above dates and the writ petition was allowed on 14.06.2012 with liberty to Collector to proceed from that stage. The Collector thereafter has issued the impugned letter/notice dated 18.06.2012 convening meeting on 10.07.2012.
6. Now the submission is that under Section 15(3)(i) the meeting must be convened within a period not later than 30 days from the date on which the notice under Section 15(2) was delivered to Collector. It is submitted that Collector was served with notice under Section 15(2) on 23.05.2012 and, therefore, 30 days would expire on 22.06.2012. Convening meeting for considering no confidence motion delivered upon Collector on 23.05.2012 fixing 10.07.2012 is clearly in the teeth of Section 15(3)(i) and, therefore, the impugned notice/letter is illegal and liable to be set aside.
7. There is no dispute in regard to the dates. Counsel for parties also could not dispute that requirement of Section 15(3) is mandatory. (See Khursheed Hussain Vs. District Magistrate and Collector, Bareilly, 1992(1) AWC 208; Mahendra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1992(1) AWC 424; and, Chhatrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2003(6) AWC 5635). In view thereof, the impugned notice cannot be sustained.
8. However, learned counsel appearing for respondents then submitted that the notice impugned in this writ petition if set aside, it would be against public interest inasmuch as the petitioner would then be contending that no fresh motion for no confidence can be initiated for a period of one year and that would cause serious prejudice to public at large. In our view this submission has no force. When a meeting itself has not been convened validly despite delivery of notice of no confidence under sub-section (2) of Section 15 by the Collector under Section 15(3), sub-section (12) of Section 15 would not be attracted in such a case. It would apply only when meeting actually is convened but the motion is not carrying out or the meeting though convened but for want of quorum etc. the actual business in the meeting does not take place. A similar question came up for consideration before the Division Bench in Khursheed Hussain (supra) and while considering this very provision, the Court said, when no meeting is held on account of some fault on the part of Collector in convening a meeting, committing fault in observance of provisions of sub-section (3), it would not debar a fresh motion. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that setting aside notice impugned in this writ petition would not debar the Members of Kshettra Panchayat in bringing a fresh motion. In the present case, in the facts and circumstances, as discussed above, sub-section (12) of Section 15 shall not be attracted at all.
9. In view of above discussion and with the above clarification, the writ petition, in our view, deserves to be allowed.
10. The impugned notice dated 18.06.2012 is hereby quashed.
11. The writ petition is allowed, as directed above.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 06.07.2012 PS/AK