OM PRAKASH YADAV Vs. COLLECTOR ETAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Petitioner was elected as Pramukh of Kshetra Samiti Nidhauli Kala disirict Etah in 1988. A notice of motion of no-confidence against the petitioner, was moved under section 15 of the U. P. Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 28-6-1990. Collector Etah issued a notice dated 7-7-1990 fixing 23-7-90 as the date of meeting in which aforesaid motion was to be considered by the Kshetra Samiti. It is against this order of Collector, fixing date of meeting for consideration of motion of no-confidence, that the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) AT the time this writ petition was filed this court granted stay order, whereby meeting was allowed to take place on 23-7-1990, but it was directed that the result shall not be given effect to. Meeting was accordingly held on 23-7-1990 in which out of total 95 members of Gaon Sabha 65 attended the meeting and out of 65, 62 voted against the petitioner while 3 were in his favour. In this manner the motion of no-confidence has been passed against the petitioner by vast majority.

(3.) IN support of his argument the learned counsel for petitioner has placed, before us, three postal receipts, which have been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition in order to demonstrate that the notices were despatched on 9-7-1990. Learned counsel for Sri Abhai Singh Yadav has, on the other hand, contested the claim of the petitioner that the notices were despatched on 9-7-1990 and in this connection the learned counsel has invited our attention to the same annexure-2 to the writ petition in order to show that the notice of meeting was in fact despatched on 7-7-1990, but another seal of 9-7-1990 has been affixed on the old seal of 7-7-1990. Learned counsel for respondent has also placed before us, postal receipts of 7-7-1990 in order to show that notices were despatched on 7-7-1990. Learned counsel for petitioner, while disputing the claim of the respondent, has relied upon two affidavits of Branch Post Master Bhagipur district Etah, and one of the affidavits is addressed to the District Magistrate Etah, which has been annexed as annexure-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit. IN this affidavit it has been mentioned that notices were despatched on 9-7-1990. By another affidavit, which has been addressed to this court and filed alongwith supplementary affidavit by petitioner, the Branch Post Master has repeated the same averments about despatch of notices on 9-7-1990 and not on 7-7-1990. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has produced a photo stat copy of the letter which contains an endorsement by postal authorities to the effect that notices were despatched on 7-7-1990.