RAM KINKAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri O. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Virendra Kumar Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Collector, Sitapur dated 20.1.2018 directing for convening a meeting of No-Confidence Motion on 7.2018. Further prayer is for an appropriate direction restraining the respondents from holding any meeting on 7.2018.

(3.) The first point urged by the learned Senior Advocate is that the resolution for No-Confidence Motion was made on 30.12.2017 and it was presented to the Collector on the same day. It is also the case of the petitioner that the notice (Annexure - 1) for convening the No-Confidence Motion is undated. From a perusal of Annexure -1, it clearly indicates that there is an endorsement dated 12.1.2018 by the Collector, Sitapur marked to the District Panchayat Raj Officer to submit a proposal after examination. Thus, the submission of the learned Senior Advocate that the notice of No-Confidence Motion having been given on 30.12.2017 and the meeting having been convened on 7.2.2018 would be beyond the period of 30 days cannot be accepted as the endorsement made on Annexure - 1 is dated 12.1.2018. Sri H. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel upon instructions states that the notice was presented on 12.1.2018. Thus, the first argument is rejected.