RAJEEV KIRAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are to the effect that on 20th December, 2010 the petitioner was duly elected as Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat Devkali, District Ghazipur. Oath of the office was administered to the petitioner on 18th March, 2011 and since then the petitioner has been regularly discharging duties of the office of Pramukh and has never been found guilty of any dereliction of duty and functions of the office as contemplated under the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter in short called as the "Act"). However, on account of political rivalry, notice/proposal for bringing no confidence motion against the petitioner, which was allegedly signed by 61 members out of 96 members of the Kshettra Panchayat Devkali, has been served upon the respondent no. 2 i.e. the District Magistrate, Ghazipur. The District Magistrate, Ghazipur, on the basis of aforesaid proposal, issued the notice/order dated 13th July, 2012, whereby meeting has been fixed for 04th August, 2012 for considering the proposal of no confidence motion against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, such notice/order has been issued by the District Magistrate without following the prescription of Section 15 of the Act. Moreover, 59 members, out of total 96 members of concerned Kshettra Panchayat, swore affidavits on 03rd July, 2012 stating that they are fully satisfied with the functioning of the petitioner as Pramukh and further the person, who had lost the election, namely, Moti Chand Pasi, has tried to bring a fabricated and false proposal of no-confidence motion and there is every likelihood that names of the members have been forged in order to make out a proposal enabling him to bring a motion of no-confidence. The petitioner further contended that the order impugned dated 13th July, 2012 has been passed in a mechanical fashion without application of mind and, as such, the same cannot be sustained. Against this background, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs:

(2.) The writ petition was filed on 23rd July, 2012 and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 25th July, 2012 directed the petitioner to implead the concerned Kshettra Panchayat as well as Moti Chand as respondent nos. 3 and 4. In further, since the resolution was passed against the petitioner on 04th August, 2012, the petitioner was allowed to bring such fact to the notice of the Court, therefore, an amendment application was allowed to file, which is in the record. Though formalities for incorporation of impleadment and amendment are not complete by amending the relevant portions of the writ petition by red ink, yet since we have heard Mr. Somesh Khare, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Ramanand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, and Mr. C.K. Parekh and Mr. S.K.Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for newly impleaded respondent no. 4- Sri Moti Chand, who is alleged to be member of the Kshettra Panchayat and has brought the no confidence motion, on all the points including holding of meeting on 04th August, 2012, we are of the view that the procedural formalities can be ignored and the present writ petition can be decided and the judgement can be delivered on all the issues including the issue as taken by the petitioner by way of amendment application.

(3.) The question relevant herein is with regard to issuance of notice regarding motion of no-confidence against the Pramukh as under Section 15 of the Act. Mr. Somesh Khare, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has given emphasis on Section 15(3)(ii) of the Act and said that written notice is required to be given of not less than fifteen days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed. In the instant case, there is a clear violation of such provision of notice, which is required to be served in accordance with law, therefore, no confidence motion ignoring such period of notice is fatal and the meeting, which has been held without completing the period, is bad in law.