LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/kiran-pal-singh-vs-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-20180517/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Kiran Pal Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
17 May 2018
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 2622 of 2018
Result
Dismissed
Bench
Dipak Misra, D.Y. Chandrachud, A.M. Khanwilkar
Citation
[2018] 4 S.C.R. 535 : 2018 INSC 530
Supreme Court Reports [2018] 4 S.C.R. 535 : 2018 INSC 530
Headnote

Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961:

s. 15 (2) and (12) – Notice under s. 15(2) – For carrying out no confidence motion – Against Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchyat (Appellant) – No action taken on the notice – Another notice u/s. 15(2) – Meeting of Panchayat convened by Competent Authority for consideration of no confidence motion – Resulting in passing of no confidence motion – Appellant filed writ petition u/Art. 226 of Constitution challenging the second notice on the ground that during pendency of first notice second notice could not have been issued in view of prohibition under sub-section (12) of s. 15 – High Court dismissed the petition – On appeal, held: s. 15(12) comes into play when there is meeting and motion is not carried out as per provisions of s.15 or meeting could not be held for want of quorum – In the present case, s. 15(12) would not be applicable as no meeting was convened to consider the previous notice – Mere receipt of notice would not allow prohibition under s. 15(12) to come into play.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. In the present case, there is no allegation that the meeting was convened to consider the previous notice dated 9th October, 2017, as provided in Section 15 of Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchyats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 and the motion was not challenged on any other ground or the lack of quorum. What is singularly contended is that once a notice is given under Section 15(2), another notice of no confidence shall not be received until after expiration of one year. The said submission is without any substance inasmuch as the prohibition under Section 15(12) would only come into play when there is meeting and the motion is “not carried out” as per the provisions of Section 15 or meeting could not be held for want of quorum. As the facts of the instant case would reveal that no meeting was convened to consider the previous notice dated 9th October, 2017, as per the provisions of the Act. Mere receipt of a notice by the Collector will not allow the prohibition under Section 15(12) to come into play. That is not the purpose of the provision. Therefore, sub-section 15(12) would not come into play. Neither of the conditions precedent is satisfied to attract the prohibition engrafted under Section 15(12) of the Act. [Para 20][545-D-G]

Read the full headnote (4 more paragraphs)

2. The legislature being empowered by the Constitution has legislated to provide for the establishment of Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh to undertake certain Governmental functions at Kshettra and District levels respectively in furtherance of the principles of democratic decentralisation of Governmental functions. It intends to empower the Panchayats and that is why, Section 9 clearly provides that the term of the office of Pramukh is for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting. That brings stability to the administration of the Gram Panchayat. Simultaneously, it also provides that the democracy at the rural level must cherish the values of democracy and, therefore, a Pramukh can be removed when a vote of no confidence is passed against him. Once the no confidence motion fails, it cannot be brought again for one year. Sub-section (13) of Section 15 provides that no notice of a motion under Section 15 shall be received within two years of the assumption of office by a Pramukh. This is in consonance with the principle of stability of rural governance. [Para 21] [545-H; 546-A-C]

Bhanumati etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and Others (2010) 12 SCC 1 : [2010] 7 SCR 585 ; The Punjab University, Chandigarh v. Vijay Singh Lamba and Others (1976) 3 SCC 344 : [1976] Suppl. SCR 67 – referred to.

Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 74 ; Black’s Law Dictionary (Second Edition) – referred to.

& ORS.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, CJI. 1. India, a vast country, lives in villages. The Gram Sabhas in the ancient era were conferred certain powers so that there could be a feeling of participation in the societal and local issues and also to establish a socio-cultural amity among the members of the collective. History records with satisfaction that panchayats were able to settle disputes amongst the villagers and they had many a tool to focus on unity. Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation, emphasized on many an occasion that people should go to the villages to real
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →