U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961– s.15– Appellant, Block Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, was issued no confidence motion notice by the Collector – Writ petition filed by appellant, dismissed – Plea of appellant that there was no clear 15 days’ notice as contemplated u/sub-s.(3) of s.15 – Held: Rejected – Appellant avoided to receive the notice personally and hence it was sent by post – Appellant failed to produce any material on record to show that the notice was dispatched after the 17 th day (the day fixed for meeting, as per the notice) – Further, on appellant’s own admission in the writ petition, it was evident that the objection to the said notice relating to signatures of few members who had signed the notice was taken on the 16th day itself – Another ground urged by the appellant that the Collector ought to have enquired into the validity of the signatures of members, who subsequently filed affidavits stating that their signatures were obtained by fraud, was also justly negatived by the High Court – Impugned judgment does not warrant any interference.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The appellant had refused/avoided to receive the notice personally and hence it was sent by post. The High Court also found that the appellant had failed to produce any material on record to show that the notice was dispatched after the 17th day and that on the appellant’s own admission in the writ petition, it was evident that the objection to the said notice was taken on the 16th day itself relating to signatures of few members who had signed the notice. This was a strong circumstance to belie the tall claim of the appellant. Taking an overall view of the matter, the High Court noted that the issue involved a disputed question of fact and could not be decided in writ jurisdiction. At the same time, the High Court took note of the fact that the meeting was duly conducted as scheduled in terms of the stated notice and the no confidence motion was passed by a majority, against the appellant. There is no reason to depart from the conclusion recorded by the High Court for rejecting the challenge that no clear 15 days’ notice was given as claimed by the appellant. Accordingly, this contention must fail and is rejected. [Para 5] [657-A-D]
1.2 Since the stated notice has already been acted upon and the no confidence motion has been passed against the appellant by majority, no further enquiry into the grounds urged by the appellant is warranted. Even the first ground urged by the appellant that the Collector ought to have enquired into the validity of the signatures of 10 members, who subsequently filed affidavits stating that their signatures were obtained by fraud, was justly negatived by the High Court. [Paras 6, 8] [661-G-H; 662-A]
Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 2015 All. 65 ; Mathura Prasad Tewari v. Assistant District Panchayat Officer, Faizabad 1966 ALJ 612 –
approved.
Kiran Pal Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2018 (7) SCALE 605 – relied on.
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.
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.