HAJI MOHAMMAD HANIF Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order contained in notice dated 26.8.1997, issued by the Collector, Moradabad, under Section 15(3) of U.P. Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 (The title of this Adhiniyam has been substituted by U.P. Act No. 9 of 1994 as 'U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961.') (hereinafter referred to as 1961 Adhiniyam), convening the meeting of no confidence motion was originally challenged by means of this writ petition. By an order dated 19.9.1997 the no confidence motion was permitted to be considered as scheduled, but the declaration of result was restrained by this Court. Subsequently, the meeting having been held and the same has also been assailed, since the same was the subject matter of decision of this writ petition.

(2.) SRI Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri R.K. Awasthi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the same on three grounds; (1) The provision of Section 15(3) of 1961 Act being mandatory and the notice having not been accompanied by a copy of proposal of motion the meeting was void, (2) The provision relating to the conduct of such election, as provided in Section 15(3) read with the relevant rules having not been followed and complied with, with regard to. the conduct of the election, the result of the meeting can not be sustained, and (3) That the manner in which the election was conducted did not maintain the secrecy, which is the life blood of democratic process and, as such, the result is liable to be cancelled.

(3.) SRI Murlidhar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents, on the other hand opposes the said contention of Sri Jain and contended that if there is substantial compliance of provision even though the mandatory, the same would not render the out come invalid. Secondly, he contended that there was no infraction of the procedure for carrying out of no confidence motion in terms of Section 15 read with the relevant Rules. Thirdly, he contended that the Secrecy code was not violated. While elaborating his argument Sri Murlidhar, pointed out that the notice itself contained the name of the persons who had signed the proposal for no confidence motion and the exact proposal which was submitted by them was quoted in the notice itself. There being no other information for the purposes of no confidence motion, the petitioner had never been deproved of any information. Therefore, technical violation can not be said to be non -compliance of the said provision. He also contended that it is apparent. from the minutes of the meeting translation whereof, has been furnished by Sri Jain, the entire procedure has been followed step by step and there has been no infraction. He also contended that the ballot papers were signed and the boxes were kept at the separate secret enclosures invisible by others while on had casted their votes. Even if it is taken into two boxes it has not violated the secrecy code.