Lok Singh vs State of U.P.And Others

Lok Singh has filed two writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition No. 451 (MB) of 2008 alongwith seven petitioners and Writ Petition No. 5880 (MB) of 2008 by himself alone.

This writ petition challenges the motion of no confidence, which is said to have been carried through on 16.6.08.

The main challenge is based on the argument that no notice was issued or served upon the petitioner before the date of meeting or even thereafter and, therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated.

The next argument is that even the notice of proposed no confidence motion was not properly presented before the Collector and the motion was not signed by ten members, though, it should be signed by more than half of the members of the Zila Panchayat.

The last argument is that the meeting was conducted in the Meeting Hall of the Collectorate, whereas under the rules, it was to be conducted in the Committee Hall of the Zila Panchayat.

Sri Anuj Kudesia, Counsel for the State, has produced the record, which shows that the motion of no confidence with due notice was presented before the Collector on 23rd May, 2008, which was duly signed by the adequate number of persons. The record also shows that the notice was signed by ten members as against the total membership of fifteen. The motion of no confidence was signed by two members and it was presented by one Sri Jitendra, one of the members in person, who was the signatory to the notice.

The District Magistrate/Collector has passed an order on 24th May, 2008 for issuance of the notices by registered post to all the members and fixed 16.6.08, as the date of meeting at 11 O''clock in the Meeting Hall of the Collectorate of Gautam Budh Nagar.

The record also shows the postal receipts, as an evidence that the notices were actually dispatched through the Post Office and there is a presumption that the same has been received by the addressee, unless returned undelivered. These postal receipts show that the notices were sent by speed post, which according to the respondents, is also a registered post.

The presentation of the no confidence motion alongwith the notice before the Collector under Section 28 requires that a written notice of intent on to make the motion, in such form as may be prescribed, signed by not less than onehalf of the total number of elected members of the Zila Panchayat for the time being, together with a copy of the proposed motion, shall be delivered in person, by any one of the members signing the notice, to the Collector having jurisdiction over the Zila Panchayat.

The requirement thus, is that the notice is to be signed by not less than half of the elected members of Zila Panchayat, which is to be presented in person by any one of the members signing the notice, before the Collector along with the copy of the proposed motion.

The aforesaid provision does not require anywhere that the proposed motion of no confidence should also be signed by more than half of the elected members of Zila Panchayat. The requirement thus under Section 28 having been fulfilled, we do not find any illegality in the acceptance of notice by the Collector. The Collector on his turn immediately took cognizance of the said notice and fixed a date of meeting with the Civil Judge, as Presiding Officer and also directed to issue notices to all the members, which were actually issued in time.

The next plea is that the petitioner did not receive the notice and he has made an enquiry from the Post Office concerned, who had given a certificate that no registered letter in the name of the petitioner has been received right from 20th May, 2008 till 16th June, 2008 and, therefore, in the absence of any notice to the petitioner, the meeting so held is vitiated and the proceedings thereof, cannot have any legal sanctity nor the declaration that the motion stands passed, can have any legal binding.

Submission is that, since the meeting itself was not convened after due notice, which is the mandatory provision, therefore, the entire proceedings are null and void.

Another argument in support of the aforesaid plea that the meeting was itself void and no nest, has been raised saying that the meeting was to be conducted in the Committee Hall of the office of Zila Panchayat in terms of Section 28(3), but in the instant case, it was held in the Meeting Hall of the Collectorate and this also vitiates the entire proceedings.

. 15. Orders/directions to issue notice to all the elected member of the Zila Panchayat by the Collector is not in dispute. This order/direction was issued on 24th May, 2008 itself. The dispatch of these notices by speed post registered post from the Post Office, also cannot be disputed, in view of the fact that primary proof of postal receipt being on record and have been placed before the Court, and shown to the petitioner''s Counsel also.

The question, therefore, arises that if the notices have been duly dispatched, and if they have not been received by the petitioner or any of the elected members, will it make the entire proceedings vitiated and whether it would affect the proceedings where the motion has been carried through by the requisite majority of members. In the instant case, 12 out of 15 members have attended the meeting where 11 members have voted in favour of the motion, but for the petitioner himself.

For the facts aforesaid, where the notices were dispatched in terms of requirement of law and 12 out of 15 members have attended the meeting where 11 members have voted in favour of the motion but for the petitioner himself, we do not find that any of the pleas raised by the Counsel for the petitioner will have any effect upon the proceedings nor will make the motion invalid.

So far the plea of not holding the meeting in the office of Zila Panchayat but in the Collectorate is concerned, Sri K.K. Singh, District Panchayat Raj Officer, who is present in person, says that since in the office of Zila Panchayat, there is no Hall of sufficient dimensions, where any such meeting could have been held, therefore, the Collector was having no option but to hold the meeting in the Meeting Hall of the Collectorate.

He further says that even the oath of the elected members was also conducted in the same Meeting Hall and monthly meetings of the Zila Panchayat are also held in the same Meeting Hall.

Sri Upendra Nath Misra, however, intends to dispute the aforesaid fact that the Zila Panchayat is not having a Committee Hall, but we do not find it necessary to delve oh this question for the reason that we do not have any reason to believe that the District Magistrate as well as Officer present will make a misstatement of fact.

The record aforesaid shows that the meeting was held in the Meeting Hall of the Collectorate and the motion has been passed in the presence of adequate number of persons. On consideration of the arguments of both the sides and the pleas raised by the petitioner, we are of the view that motion of no confidence having been passed by such a large number of persons and that too after a period of two years, the petition has no force, which is hereby dismissed.