Mahsndra Pal vs Collector Hardoi & Ors.

R.H. Zaidi, J.—By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner initiallyprayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notices dated 471997 and 1471997 issued to convene the meeting of Kshetriya Samiti, Tandiyana, Tehsil and district Hardoi for consideration of noconfidence motion against the petitioner. Prayers for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to holding meeting on 381997 and to allow the petitioner to work as Block Pramukh, were also made. Subsequently, by means of amendment allowed on 16101997, prayer for quashing the proceedings of the meeting and motion of no confidence passed on 381997 was also added.

It appears that against the petitioner who happened to be Block Pramukh of Kshetriya Samiti, Tandiyana Block, district Hardoi, as many as 35 members out of 63 gave a notice to '' he Collector, to convene meeting for consideration of no confidence motion against him, along with the copy of no confidence motion on 471997, on the basis of which the Collector issued notices for holding meeting on 381997. On receipt of the notice from the Collector, petitioner is alleged to have filed an application on 1771997 before the Collector for verification of the signature, as according to him, signatures existing on the notice were forged and fictitious. Thereafter another application dated 2571997 is alleged to have been made by the petitioner to the Collector, requesting to supply him a copy of notice whereby meeting was convened. Petitioner on 2871997 also requested to supply copy of noconfidence motion along with the charges, if any, levelled against him. It is stated that the notices were issued by the Collector in contravention of the provisions of Section 15 of U.P. Kshetra Samitis and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961 (for short ''the Act''). Therefore, said notices were liable to be quashed.

Petitioner challenging validity of the said notices filed present petition in this Court on 2471997. On the said date, following order was passed by this Court:

"List putup on August 11, 1997 to enable the State Counsel to file a short counter. In the meantime, it is provided that the meeting convened to consider the noconfidence motion may be held as, scheduled but the motion, if carried through against the petitioner, shall not be given effect to till the next date."

It was on 381997 that the meeting of Kshetriya Samiti was held and the motion of the noconfidence is alleged to have been carried against the petitioner. Fortyseven members voted in favour of the motion. Seven votes were cast against the motion, while three were declared invalid. However, in view of the order passed by this Court noconfidence motion passed against the petitioner was not given effect to. Petitioner, thereafter, filed amendment application, challenging validity of motion of no confidence passed and the proceedings of the meeting held on 381997, which was allowed on 16101997.

On behalf of the contesting respondents, counteraffidavit has been field, denying the facts stated in the writ petition. It was stated that the notice for convening the meeting to consider motion of no confidence was delivered to the Collector on 571997 and not on 471997, although the same was prepared on 471997. Notice issued by the Collector was served upon the members on 2771997. It was on 571997 that the Collector got the signatures of the members verified and the meeting was, thereafter, held within thirty days of the receipt of notice, in accordance with law on 381997, in which motion of no confidence was carried against the petitioner by 47 out of 57 voles. The writ petition, according to the contesting respondents, was liable to be dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that it was obligatory upon the Collector to send copy of the motion along with the notices issued for holding the meeting. The copy of the motion was not annexed to it. Therefore, the entire proceedings of the meeting held on 381997 were invalid and illegal. It was also urged that the meeting having not been held within thirty days of the receipt of notice as required under Section 15 of the Act, the proceedings of the meeting held on 3 81997 were invalid and on the basis of the same, petitioner cannot be ousted from the office of Pramukh.

Learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, supported validity of the notice issued by the Collector as well as the proceedings of the meeting held on 381997. It was urged that more than requisite number of members voted against the petitioner and in favour of motion of noconfidence, therefore, the petitioner had got no right to continue to hold the office of Pramukh. It was also asserted that the notices issued by the Collector for holding the meeting to the members were quite valid and do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

We have considered submission made by learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

Procedure for motion expressing want of confidence in Pramukh or any Up Pramukh has been provided under Section 15 of the Act. In the present case, we will have to see as to whether procedure prescribed for motion of noconfidence was followed or not, and if not, whether it has vitiated the proceedings of the meeting held on 381997.

It is wellsettled in law that provisions which relate to calling of the meeting and actual holding of the meeting, as also conduct of the meeting, are mandatory and the provision dealing with what is to follow termination of the meeting are directory. A reference in this regard may be made to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Mahesh Chandra and another v. Tara Ghana Modi, AIR 1958 All 374. While considering provisions of Section 87Aof U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P. Act No. 2 of 1916), which are pari materia with the provision of Section 15 a Full Bench of this Court was pleased to hold as under:

"The provisions of Section 7A can be broadly divided into two portions, one dealing with the provisions which relate to the calling of the meeting and the actual holding of the meeting as also the conduct of the meeting itself; and the other dealing with what is to follow the termination of the meeting. The first portion of this section is mandatory in the scope, but not the second .portion. The words ''a motion expressing noconfidence in the President shall be made only in accordance with the procedure Laid down below'' in Section 87A (1) can and do refer only to the calling of the meeting and the holding of the meeting and not to acts which have to be performed subsequent to the meeting."

In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque and others, AIR 1955 SC 233, while considering provisions of Rule 47 of the Representation of People (Conduct of Elections and Election Petitions) Rules, 1951, Apex Court was pleased to observe that practical bearing of the distinction between provision which is mandatory and one which is directory is that while the former must be strictly observed, in the case of the latter it is sufficient that it is substantially compiled with. The net result of failure to comply with the mandatory provisions is that the proceedings of the meeting are rendered invalid and ineffective.

In the present case, it is not disputed that along with the notice issued by the Collector, copy of motion of noconfidence submitted by the members along with the notice to convene the meeting, was not sent to the members, Section 15 of the Act provides as under: (Only relevant quoted)

"15. Motion of noconfidence in Pramukh or Up Pramukh.(1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh or any UpPramukh of procedure Laid in the following subsections.

(2) A written notice of intention to make the motion, in such form as may be prescribed, signed by at least half of the total numbers of members of Kshetra Samiti 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 Kshetra Samiti.

(3) The Collector shall there upon

(i) convene a meeting of Kshetra Samiti for the consideration of the motion at the office of the Kshetra Samiti on a date appointed by hire, which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under subsection (2) was delivered to him; and ''

(ii) give to the members of the Kshetra Samiti notice of not less than fifteen days in such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed.

(Emphasis added) 2CHMJJIR36

In view of subsection (3) of Section 15 quoted above, notice is to be issued by the Collector, to convene meeting of Kshetra Samiti for consideration of motion of noconfidence, against Pramukh on the date, time and place, appointed by him. Notice is to be issued in such manner as may be prescribed. The term ''prescribed'' has been defined under subsection (19) of Section 2 of the Act as under:

"2 (19) ''Prescribed'' means prescribed by the Act or by any rule made there under."

In exercise of power under Section 236 of the Act, Rules have been framed by the State Government, Rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules provides as under:

"2. Notice under clause (ii) of subsection (3) of Section 15 of the U.P. Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961, shall be in Form II of the Schedule given below and shall be sent by registered post to every member of the Kshetra Samiti at his ordinary place of residence. It shall also be published by affixation of a copy thereof on the notice board of the office of the Kshetra Samiti. Form II prescribed under the Rules referred to above, is quoted below: Form II (Form of the notice of a meeting of the Kshetra Samiti to be held for the consideration of the noconfidence motion against the Pramukh UpPramukh.To Sri Member of Kshetra Samiti District notice This notice is hereby given to you of the meeting of" Kshetra Samiti which shall be held at the office of the said Kshetra Samiti on ..............(date) at ............ (time) for consideration of the motion of non confidence which has been made against Sri......................the Pramukh UpPramukh of the said Kshetra Samiti. A copy of the motion of annexed here to. Place............ Date Collector. (Emphasis added).

It is evident from the aforesaid proforma of notice, that along with the notice, a copy of the motion is to be annexed.

In view of statutory provisions noted above, it was mandatory for the Collector to send copy of the resolution, along with the notice issued by him for holding meeting. Admittedly, as stated above, copy of motion was not annexed to and was not sent to the members, along with the notice, issued by the Collector. Thus, the proceedings of the meeting held on 381997 were not held in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Similar controversy as is involved in the present case, was involved in the case of Ram Nath Tripathi v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and others, 1993 (11) LCD 375, a Division Bench of this Court after referring to the provisions of Section 15 of the Act, and the rules framed there under, was pleased to rule as under:

"21. Section 15 (3) is in mandatory form, it consists of two parts. The first part says that the Collector shall convene a meeting of Kshetra Samiti for consideration of the motion. It further provides that the meeting shall be convened at the office of the Kshetra Samiti on a date appointed by the Collector. This date cannot be later than 30 days from the date on which the notice is delivered to the Collector under subsection (2) of Section 15."

The second part provides that the Collector shall give notice of the meeting to all the members of the Kshetra Samiti in such manner as may be prescribed. Both the parts are mandatory in character. Since the form in which notice is to be issued to the members of the Kshetra Samiti has been prescribed by the Rules made by the State Government, the requirement that the notice shall be in that form, is also, therefore, mandatory. Where the law required a thing to be done in a particular manner, that thing is to be done in that manner or not at all. This is a well known principle. Examined on the touchstone of this principle, it will be seen that the notice issued to the petitioner, though on the prescribed form, was not in compliance of all the requirements prescribed by Rules inasmuch as the names of all the members of the Kshetra Samiti, who had signed the motion, had not been indicated in the copy.

Since in the instant case we have found it as a fact that the copy of the motion issued to the petitioner along with the notice for the date on which the meeting was convened was not a complete copy inasmuch as the names of the members of the Kshetra Samiti who had signed the original motion were not mentioned in the copy sent to him and had, thereby been concealed from him, there was total noncompliance of the provisions of Section 15 (3) read with the Rules made by the State Government under Section 217 of the Act, which were notified by, the State Government on? Since the steps indicated in Section 15 (3) had not been properly taken by the Collector, and there was non compliance of the requirements, all subsequent steps and actions become invalid and cannot be sustained."

In the above noted case, although copy of the motion was sent to the members, but the names of the members were not mentioned in the copies sent to them. In the present case, what to say, of the mentioning of the names of members, even copy of the motion of noconfidence, was not sent to the members, therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that the proceedings of the meeting held on 381997 were invalid and illegal and on the basis of motion of noconfidence, although allegedly passed by majority of members, the petitioner cannot be ousted from the office of Pramukh.

In view of the aforesaid facts, it is not necessary to go into controversy as to whether meeting was held within thirty days of the receipt of notice, by the Collector or not. Further the date of delivery of notice to the Collector by the members has been disputed by contesting respondents and this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot go into disputed questions of fact.

In view, of the aforesaid discussions, present petition deserves to be allowed.

Writ petition is allowed. Impugned notices dated 471997 and 1471997 as well as the proceedings of the meeting held on 381997 are, hereby quashed. It is however, observed that it will be open to the members of Kshetra Samiti to move afresh motion of noconfidence if they think proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

No order as to costs. Petition allowed.