CHANDRA KISHORE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4.

(2.) Petitioner was elected Block Pramukh of block Chitrakoot, Tehsil Karwi, District Chitrakoot. A motion of 'No Confidence' was presented against him and said to have been passed in the meeting dated 30.10.2017 by the Kshetra Panchayat members, which has been put to challenge in this petition. The only ground pressed before us for challenging the said 'No Confidence Motion' is that there are total 127 elected members, out of which, 71 members voted for the motion. Out of the 71 members, 8 members had not subscribed to oath prior to the meeting of No Confidence, which was held on 30.10.2017. As such 8 members, who had not subscribed to the oath of office, were not entitled to vote in the no confidence motion.

(3.) This issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamla Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2014) 3 UPLBEC 2495. The question formulated therein was whether 71 elected members, who are alleged not to have subscribed to oath as prescribed under the Rules, were entitled to participate in the meeting held for consideration of No Confidence Motion. The Division Bench of this Court, after considering the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules, held that merely because the members signing the notice for expressing No Confidence have not subscribed to oath, would not mean that they, ipso facto, lose their membership or are disqualified to either participate or vote in the meeting of No Confidence, their status, despite having failed to subscribe to oath, continues to be that of an elected member.