HUB LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -These are two writ petitions, one filed by petitioner Hub Lal, who is elected Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Manda, Allahabad and another by Sanjay Singh and 42 other petitioners, who are the members of Kshettra Panchayat, Manda supporting the petitioner Hub Lal with the following prayers.

(2.) THE reliefs sought for by petitioner Hub Lal in Writ Petition No. 3266 of 2008 filed by Hub Lal are as under :

(3.) THE contention of learned standing counsel is that all the proceedings of the meeting of motion of no confidence were held in accordance with law. THE petitioner contended that this can be verified from the original record. It is apparent that after receipt of the notice which contained the alleged signature of the requisite number of members of Kshettra Panchayat, the District Magistrate has rightly issued the notice in exercising his power for the purpose of convening the meeting of no confidence motion as contemplated under Section 15 of "1961 Adhiniyam". THE respondents further asserted that all the allegations of the petitioners are not correct and therefore the same are denied. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the meeting was duly convened and it was completed in peaceful manner wherein all the 45 members present in the meeting have taken part for the motion of no confidence against the petitioner Hub Lal. It is therefore asserted that there is no illegality in the conduct of the meeting and declaration of the success of the motion of no confidence by the respondents, therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. As already observed from the "C.D.", which is prepared pursuant to the direction issued by the District Magistrate for videography of the proceedings of the meeting, which we have viewed in the presence of the pairokars and learned counsels for respective parties, including learned Additional Advocate General Sri Zafar Naiyar in Chambers and after viewing the "C.D." the same was directed to be kept in a seal cover and shall form part of the record. During the course of viewing the "C.D.", large number of irregularities were pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners as per instructions by their pairokars. We have seen the "C.D." and found as under :