SHIV SHANKER YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Kesri Nath Tripathi learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is the elected Chairman of Kshettra Panchayat Ramkola District Kushinagar. The argument of Sri Tripathi is that the notice of no confidence that has been moved is not in accordance with the prescribed procedure inasmuch as it has been categorically stated in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that only five persons have signed the notice whereas the requirement under law is that more than half of the Members should have moved the said notice. He contends that the document which has been filed alongwith the motion alleging 83 signatures out of a total of 96 members cannot be treated to be part of the notice, and admittedly if the notice itself has not been signed as per the requirement of law, then requisition of the meeting for the no confidence motion is invalid.

(3.) Sri Shashi Nandan learned Senior Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of Smt. Neeta Yadav who has filed an impleadment application contending that the first page of the notice could not have possibly accommodated the signatures of all 83 persons and in such a situation the members who have signed the additional sheets which has been appended alongwith the motion should be treated to be the signatories to the notice as well.