KUNWAR HARI RAJ SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice of the meeting proposed to be held on 31-1-1991 (Annexure '6' to the writ petition) regarding vote of no confidence against the petitioner. Another prayer has also been made seeking writ of mandamus commanding opposite party No. 1 to cancel the meeting proposed to be held on 31-1-1991.

(2.) The petitioner is elected Chairman of Nagar Palika, Haldaur, District Bijnor. It appears that on 31-12-1990 allegedly 13 members of the Nagar Palika moved a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner as is evident from Annexure '1' to the writ petition, and prayed for calling the meeting according to law for the aforesaid purpose. On 3-1-1991 an application has been moved on behalf of one Smt. Yashoda Devi / alleging that her signature was forged as she had not signed. Therefore, further proceedings on the charges against the petitioner should be proceeded with according to the rules. The application of aforesaid Yashoda Devi was supported by an affidavit. Sri Chandda Bhushan Singh, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika was deputed to make inquiry into the genuineness of the signatures on annexure '1' attached to the writ petition. The aforesaid Inquiry Officer made a report that only four signatures of Sarvasri Subhod Kumar Sharma, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Rampal Singh and Chandra Pal Singh were true signatures of the persons concerned and about other signatures he opined that they were either different from the signatures available on the record or some of them were farzi and not genuine.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner in the above circumstances has contended before us that the notice contained in annexure '6' regarding the vote of no-confidence against the petitioner is bad in law in so far as it does not provide seven clear days notice to the petitioner and other members as contemplated by the relevant provisions of law. It has also been suggested that the requisite number of members had not signed the proposal of no-confidence motion against the petitioner; hence the meeting scheduled to be held on 31-1-1991 is illegal and invalid. It has also been emphasised that really only four members had signed the notice for motion of noconfidence against the petitioner therefore, the District Magistrate could not call the meeting.