REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

CHHATRAPAL SINGH Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U P Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BHOLA RAM KUSHWAHA V. ZILA PANCHAYAT RAJ ADHIKARI [REFERRED TO]
KHURSHEED HUSSAIN V. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND COLLECTOR,BAREILLY [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA PAL SINGH V. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
NAZIR AHMED V. KING EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR V. J.A.C. SALDANNA [REFERRED TO]
DEEP CHAND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
PATNA IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. LAKSHMI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SINGHARA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
H H MAHARAJADHIRAJA MADHAV RAO JIVAJI RAO SGINDIA BAHADUR OF GWALIOR H H MAHARAJADHIRAJA MAHARANA SHRI BHAGWAT SINGHJI BAHADUR OF UDAIPUR COL H H BRARBANS SARAMAUR RAJA I RAJAGAN SIR PRATAP SINGH MALVENDRA BAHADUR COL RAJA SURINDER SINGH BAHADUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NIKA RAM VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA KESHAV ADKE VS. GOVIND JOTI CHAVARE [REFERRED TO]
CHETTIAN VEETIL AMMAD C MATHEW JAYASHREE TEA AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED RAVI KARUNA KARAN E V PAUL P A SIVASUBRAMONIAN V G KURIAKOSE C A VENKATACHALLAM CHETTIAR SUBHADRA SMT VARGHESE MARIAM P J VETRIVEL P M KURUVILLA THO VS. TALUK LAND BOARD:STATE OF KERALA:TALUK LAND BOARD:TALUK LAND BOARD:TALUK LAND BOARD:STATE OF KERALA:TALUK LAND BOARD:TALUK LAND BOARD:STATE OF KERALA:TAL [REFERRED TO]
RAJPUT RUDA MEHA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH OM PRAKASH FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
A K ROY VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR G S SODHI LT COL S K DUGGAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SUN ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH BOMBAY VS. INDIAN HUME PIPE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR ECIL HYDERABAD VS. B KARUNAKAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MIZORAM VS. BIAKCHHAWNA [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. S K SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
J N GANATRA VS. MORVI MUNICIPALITY MORVI [REFERRED TO]
S K SINGH VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHATRUGHAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
BABU VERGHESE VS. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA KISHORE JHA VS. MAHAVIR PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA KISHORE JHA VS. MAHAVIR PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
HARESH DAYARAM THAKUR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. GURDIP SINGH UBAN [REFERRED TO]
DHANANJAYA REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
DADI JAGANNADHAM VS. JAMMULU RAMULU [REFERRED TO]
SIDDAPPA VASAPPA KURI VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI VS. ANJUM M H GHASWALA [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. JAGDAMBA OIL MILLS [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR LAL SAZAWAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. MANOHAR LAL [REFERRED TO]
DEBOTOSH PAL CHOUDHARY VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [REFERRED TO]
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY VS. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CHAJJU RAM [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH VS. U P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
GYAN SINGH VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BIJNOR [REFERRED TO]
DEVI SINGH VS. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ ADHIKARI [REFERRED TO]
LAKHI CHAND VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GHAZIPUR [REFERRED TO]
SHARAFATULLAH KHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned notice dated 3.9.2003 (Annexure -4), issued by the respondent No. 2, to convene the meeting for considering no -confidence motion against the petitioner on 22.9.2003.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was elected on 8.3.2001, as a Kshettra Pramukh of Block, Hasiyan, District Mahamaya Nagar. Members, more than required for the purpose of the said Kshetra Panchayat gave notice to the District Collector (Respondent No. 2) of no -confidence motion against the petitioner on 30.6.2003. The notice was issuing to all the members for holding the meeting on 21.7.2003. However, for some reason the meeting was not held and has been scheduled to be held on 22.9.2003, which is being challenged on the ground that it was mandatory for the Respondent No. 2 to hold the meeting within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice, i.e., from 30.6.2003, and as the notice has lapsed, the meeting for no -confidence motion cannot be held under the provisions of U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam, 1961).

(3.) ON the contrary, the learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Shri Vijendra Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 have submitted that there has been delay in holding the meeting as petitioner himself, had asked the District Collector to have an investigation regarding the genuineness of the signatures on the notice served upon him, and if there is a lapse on the part of the statutory authorities, that cannot vitiate the proceedings. No prejudice can be shown by the petitioner to have been caused to him and thus, no interference is called for in the matter and petition is liable to be dismissed.

Click here to view full judgment.

CHHATRAPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address