NIYAZUDDIN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sanjeev Singh along with Sri Purushottam Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

(2.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, as it came to be filed, a writ of mandamus was initially sought for commanding respondent No.2, namely, the District Magistrate, Kushinagar to pass appropriate orders exercising power vested with him under Section 15(2) of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat & Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam, 1961') qua the notice of "No Confidence Motion" already delivered to him on 9th September, 2019 by the members of the Kshettra Panchayat, Dudahi, District- Kushinagar.

(3.) The grievance raised by the petitioners is that though a statutory duty is cast upon the District Magistrate to take a decision to convene a meeting of Kshettra Panchayat for consideration of motion of no confidence moved against the Chairman/ Pramukh within 30 days of the delivery of the notice, the District Magistrate- respondent No.2 was only borrowing time by holding some roving inquiry in respect of the signatories of the notice. It had been argued initially that in view of the settled legal position emerging out from the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2015 2 ADJ 325 (FB) followed by the subsequent Division Benches of this Court, it was not open for the District Magistrate to conduct a roving inquiry calling for evidence to arrive at satisfaction regarding genuineness of the signatures of the members on the notice of no confidence motion.