LAJWANTI ASWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was elected as the Block Pramukh of Block Kaljikhal, District Pauri Garh- wal in the year 2008. More than 50% of the members of the Kshettra Panchayat filed an application on 23rd February, 2011 before the District Magistrate under sections 15 and 16 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking a motion of the no- confidence against the petitioner. THE said application was considered and the Collector passed an order on 26th February, 2011 for the return of the complaint on the ground that a composite application cannot be filed under sections 15 and 16 of the Act. Consequently, a fresh application dated 28th February, 2011 was moved by 19 members of the Kshettra Panchayat along with their respective affidavits seeking a motion of the no-confidence against the petitioner. THE said application was duly considered by the competent authority, namely, the Collector, who after being satisfied on the genuineness of the signatures, issued an order dated 1st March, 2011 directing that a meeting for the consideration of the no-confidence motion would be held on 23rd March, 2011 at 10.00 a.m. under the Chairmanship of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Pauri Garhwal. THE Block Development Officer was directed to ensure that the notices were issued to all the members and that the notice was also pasted on the notice board.

(2.) THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the issuance of the notice dated 1st March, 2011, has filed the present writ petition. In paragraph 5 of the writ perition, the petitioner has contended that the signatures of various members on the application are forged. In paragraph 10, it is alleged that the Collector failed to record his satisfaction on the genuineness of the signatures appended on the application by the members of the Kshettra Panchayat. In paragraph 11, it is alleged that 15 days previous notice was not given to the petitioner. In paragraph 12, it is stated that the notice dated 1st March, 2011 was not sent by registered post but was sent under cover of posting in gross violation of the prescribed Rules. It is alleged that the notice dated 1st March, 2011 was duly received by the petitioner on 14th March, 2011 and since 15 days clear notice was not provided, the convening of the meeting to be held on 23rd March, 9011 was wholly illegal in violation of section 15 of the Act and Rule 2 of the Rules. On these allegations, the writ petition was entertained and an interim order dated 18th March, 2011 was passed staying the convening of the meeting to be held on 23rd March, 2011.

(3.) IN the light of the aforesaid averments, the Court has heard Sri Sharad Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Navnish Negi and Sri Pankaj Chaturvedi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.C. Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri U.K. Uniyal, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri V.B.S. Negi and Sri Sandeep Kothari, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.