SHYAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by a member of the Kshettra Panchayat challenging the validity of the notice issued to him in connection with the no-confidence motion against the then Block Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat. The petitioner has categorically stated in the writ petition that on 11 th June, 2008 the concerned District Magistrate, Moradabad issued notice to the petitioner for a meeting of Kshettra Panchayat on 30th June, 2008 to consider the motion of no confidence against the then Block Pramukh. Petitioner has received the notice on 14th June, 2008. On the same day he has submitted an application to the respondent No. 2 specially mentioning therein that except one page's notice no other paper has been received. He has further said that no copy of the motion of no-confidence has been made available to him. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that when provisions of Section 15(3) of U.P. Kshettra Panchayat Evam Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) has not been followed by the authority the entire no-confidence motion is liable to be quashed. A notice under Section 15(3) of the Act is mandatory in nature. So far as clear 15 days' notice in between the date of receipt of notice and the date of meeting as per the Statute is concerned Mr. Subodh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported in AIR 1968 SC 5 (Jai Charan Lal Anal v. State of U.P. and others). However, since factually we find that the petitioner admittedly received notice on 14th June, 2008 i.e. beyond the period of 15 days of holding the meeting on 30th June, 2008, principle laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard can not be made factually applicable herein.

(2.) Coming back to the original issue we find that Mr. Subodh Kumar very much relied upon the various judgments of this Court to establish that notice under Section 15 (3) of the Act is mandatory. Such judgments are reported in Ram Nath Tripathi v. Commissioner Lucknow Division, Lucknow and other, 1992 (2) UPLBEC 1181; Dr. Mahendra Pal v. Collector, Hardoi and others, 1999 (3) AWC 2398 (LB) and Chhatrapal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2003 (6) AWC 5635.

(3.) On the other hand Mr. Ramanand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has relied upon a judgment in Haji Mohammad Hanif v. State of U.P. and others, 1997 A.W.C. (Supp.) 828 also with regard to mandatory provision of Section 15 (3) of the Act.