Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Kumar & Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. ... on 10 December, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2211
Bench: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH RESERVED Court No. - 1 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 14323 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P.Civil Sectt.Lko. & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Shankar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dr. L.P.Misra,Hemant Kumar Mishra,Nikhil Singh,Sharad Pathak,Viplav Sharma Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Per : Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.
1. Heard Sri Salman Khurshid, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prem Shankar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri H. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State and Dr. L. P. Misra and Sri Sharad Pathak, learned Counsel for respondent No.4.
2. A short question that call for decision in the case is whether under the provisions of sub-section 12 of Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, the respondent No.2 was obliged to adjourn the meeting on 14.05.2019 at 11:00 AM in the circumstances under which the petitioners and other elected members were disabled from attending the meeting or obstructed by force from exercising their right from attending the meeting.
3. Petitioners are elected Members of Zila Panchayat, Rai Bareli from different blocks of District Rai Bareli. Zila Panchayat, Rai Bareli has 52 elected Members. Under the Chairmanship of the petitioner No.1, a proposed No Confidence Motion was passed on 10.4.2019 by 31 elected Members against the 4th respondent, the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat, namely, Avadhesh Singh, who is real brother of Dinesh Singh, MLC on the symbol of the Ruling Party.
4. The proposed No Confidence Motion dated 10.4.2019 were served through FAX, e-mail and by registered post on 12.4.2019 and was also upon the respondent No.2 personally on 15.4.2019. On 15.4.2019, the Office of the District Magistrate, Rai Bareli required the signatories to the No Confidence Motion to appear before the Additional District Magistrate on 20.4.2019 at 11.00 a.m. for verification of their signature, etc. On 18.4.2019, the respondent no.2-District Magistrate postponed the aforesaid date for verification till further orders and a Press Note was also issued and pasted on the Notice Board for information of all Members.
5. On 20.4.2019, petitioner Nos.1 and 3, Rakesh Kumar and Chandra Raj Singh Patel, respectively, alongwith 50-60 unknown persons gathered at the Collectorate Compound and started sloganeering against the administration and, therefore, an FIR as Case Crime No.331/2019 under Sections 147, 332, 353, 341, 504, 171 (C) and 188 IPC was registered against five Members of the Zila Panchayat including petitioner Nos.1 and 3 for causing disturbance in the working of public servants in the Collectorate Compound during the scrutiny of nomination papers filed by different candidates for Lok Sabha Elections.
6. On 30.4.2019, the petitioners and 29 other Zila Panchayat Members filed Writ Petition No.12391 (MB) of 2019 seeking direction to the District Magistrate, Rai Bareli for convening the meeting of Members for consideration of No Confidence Motion against respondent No.4, Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Rai Bareli. On the same day, during hearing a statement was made by the Chief Standing Counsel that the date of meeting has already been decided and notice has been sent to all concerned through registered post, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
7. On 7.5.2019, petitioner No.1 submitted a representation to the District Magistrate, Rai Bareli expressing their apprehension of untoward incident and requesting for high security of campus of Zila Panchayat on 14.5.2019 and arrangement for CCTV Camera on 14.5.2019 in order to ensure free and fair conduct of voting on 14.5.2019 for consideration of No Confidence Motion, besides requesting for personal security.
8. Respondent No.2/District Magistrate and Respondent No.3/Superintendent of Police, Rai Bareli jointly passed an order on 8.5.2019 directing all Sub-Divisional Magistrates, Circle Officers and In-charge/Station House Officer of P.S. Rai Bareli to provide complete security to the Members of Zila Panchayat and their families. It was further directed that if there is a request for Armed Security, then they should be provided arm-guard immediately. They were also directed to ensure security and well-being of Zila Panchayat Members and their families.
9. On 10.5.2019, respondent Nos.2 and 3 directed the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Additional Superintendent of Police, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Circle Officers, Rai Bareli, In-charge/Station House Officers of district Rai Bareli and others to ensure law and order for peaceful conduct of meeting, security of Zila Panchayat Members and their families and provide two Armed Guards to all Zila Panchayat Members so that no untoward incident happens. The District Level Committee decides to provide one Armed Guard to the petitioner No.1/Rakesh Kumar, petitioner No.3/Chandra Raj Singh Patel and one Virendra Yadav each free of cost for a period of one month.
10. On 12.5.2019, respondent No.3 directed all Circle Officers and In-charge/Station House Officer, Rai Bareli that they should ensure security of the Zila Panchayat Members who reside in their respective areas of duty so that the meeting is held on 14.5.2019 in a free and transparent manner.
11. On 13.5.2019, the Deputy Commissioner, Labour Employment/MGNREGA in pursuance of the order dated 10.5.2019 passed by the District Magistrate nominated two Videographers for Videography of the meeting scheduled on 14.5.2019 at 11 a.m.
12. Respondent No.3/Superintendent of Police, Rai Bareli deputes Police Officers for peaceful conduct of meeting scheduled on 14.5.2019 vide orders dated 11.5.2019 and 13.5.2019. He also ordered for providing security/Armed Guard to 31 Members of Zila Panchayat for their safety and security during the meeting of No Confidence Motion scheduled for 14.5.2019.
13. According to the petitioners, on 14.5.2019, in the morning, when the elected Members were reaching Rai Bareli for participation in the meeting of No Confidence Motion, near Harchandpur Toll Plaza, they were attacked by hundred goons under the instructions from the Chairman and his brother, who mercilessly beaten and drove vehicle on the members causing serious injuries to them including petitioner No.1. Many of them were abducted and prevented from participating in the meeting for considering the No Confidence Motion. The petitioners allege that respondent No.4 and his brother parked dumpers at Dalmau and other routes so that the elected Members, who are in support of No Confidence Motion could not reach the place of No Confidence Motion. In the aforesaid untoward incident, number of persons were injured. Sitting MLA from Rai Bareli Ms. Aditi Singh was also injured in the said incident and her car was ransacked and overturned by criminal intent under instructions of respondent No.4 and his brother.
14. The petitioners and other elected Members of Zila Panchayat could not attend the meeting before the Presiding Officer on 14.5.2019 at 11.00 A.M., in view of the obstruction created by the supporters of respondent No.4 near Harchandpur Toll Plaza. The Presiding Officer/ Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Rai Bareli closed the proceedings for want of quorum at 11 a.m. as per provisions of Section 28 (12) of U. P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961. This order was communicated by the Presiding Officer to the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj, U.P. vide Annexure - 2.
15. The petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 14.5.2019 and challenged the same by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that in order to hold a free and fair No Confidence Motion, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would have made adequate arrangements for maintaining law and order, and peace, whereas in the present case, in spite of police protection, the elected members could not attend the meeting on 14.5.2019 in view of the obstruction created by the supporters of respondent No.4 at Harchandpur Toll Plaza. The meeting is marred by pandemonium at the instance of respondent No.4 and due to the aforesaid, members were not present at the venue of No Confidence Motion meeting and not a single member out of 52 Members of Zila Panchayat Members was present and the meeting cannot be said to have been held in accordance with law.
16. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 14.5.2019, the petitioner and other members belonging to the Indian National Congress (INC) who had moved the motion of No Confidence were subjected to violence, abduction, obstruction and intimidation by the supporters of respondent No.4 in order to prevent them from casting their vote at the time of No Confidence Motion. They were prevented from reaching the venue. Seven First Information Reports were registered on 14.5.2019, out of which five were registered on the same day whereas one F.I.R. was registered on 25.5.2019.
17. Detailed averments are made in the writ petition pertaining to the incidents which had occurred on 14.5.2019 and number of FIRs were registered detailing the incidents of violence on the date of meeting of No Confidence Motion. These averments are controverted by the respondents in their counter affidavits. The petitioners have also filed rejoinder affidavits and thereafter, supplementary counter affidavits were filed. The then Chief Secretary has also filed short counter affidavit.
18. As per short counter affidavit filed by the then Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, effective steps have been taken by the District Magistrate/respondent No.2 and Superintendent of Police/respondent No.3 to ensure peaceful, free, fair and transparent conduct of the meeting for consideration of 'No Confidence Motion' which was scheduled for 14.5.2019 and also ensure the personal safety and security to the Members of Zila Panchayat, Rai Bareli, who were to participate in the said meeting and who had requested for personal security. Respondent No. 3 has also ordered for providing one armed-guard to each male member and two armed-guards to each female members, and thus adequate steps for security and personal safety of the Members and peaceful conduct of the Meeting was taken by them. The additional force was also deployed by the respondent No.3/Superintendent of Police when the meeting was scheduled for considering No Confidence Motion in order to maintain law and order. Respondent No.3 has also taken prompt action pertaining to the First Information Report, which has been lodged by certain Members of Zila Panchayat.
19. Respondent No.2/District Magistrate admits to the occurrence of quarrel and fistfights of the members of Zila Panchayat, Rai Bareli prior to the meeting scheduled to consider the No Confidence Motion against respondent No.4 on 14.5.2019. It is further admitted by the District Magistrate/respondent No.2 that a Magisterial Enquiry was ordered to report on the incidents of violence in the period preceding to the scheduled meeting for voting on the No Confidence Motion. The District Magistrate, in the main counter affidavit, admitted that the petitioner No.1/Rakesh Kumar was sent to Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences for treatment. Number of persons were arrested and sent to jail, who were also charge-sheeted. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 and report of Magisterial Enquiry, they admitted that several incidents of violence and obstruction were reported from different parts of the district resulting in lodging of several FIRs and consequently charge sheets have been filed before the concerned competent Courts.
20. According to us, we are not concerned with the circumstances under which the incident happened. What is relevant is how does the incident affect the convening of the meeting and whether the supporters of respondent No.4 could effectively obstruct the petitioners and other elected Members from entering the campus of Zila Panchayat for attending the meeting on 14.5.2019, but we are concerned with the effect of such obstruction on the provisions of Section 28 (12) of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 Act.
21. Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 deals with the procedure to be followed in the matter of No Confidence. Section 28 of U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 reads as follows :-
"Section 28 : Motion of no-confidence in Adhyaksha or [x x x].- (1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Adhyaksha or [x x x]1 of a Zila Panchayat may be made and proceeded with in accordance with the procedure laid down in the following sub-section.
(2) A written notice of intent on to make the motion, in such form as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one-half of the total number of [elected members]3 of the Zila Panchayat for the time being, together with a copy of the proposed motion, shall be delivered in person, by any one of the members signing the notice, to the collector having jurisdiction over the Zila Panchayat.
(3) The collector shall thereupon-
(i) convene a meeting of the Zila Panchayat for the consideration of the motion at the office of the Zila Panchayat on a date appointed by him, which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) was delivered to him; and
(ii) give to the [elected members]3 notice of not less than fifteen days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed.
Explanation.-In computing the period of thirty days specified in this sub-section, the period during which a stay order, if any, issued by a Competent Court on a petition filed against the motion made under this section is in force plus such further time as may be required in the issue of fresh notice of the meeting to the [elected members] shall be excluded.
(4) The collector shall arrange with the District Judge of the district to preside at such meeting.
Provided that the District Judge may instead of presiding himself direct a Civil Judicial Officer not below the rank of a Civil Judge subordinate to him to preside at the meeting.
[(4-A) If within an hour from the time appointed for the meeting such officer is not present to preside at the meeting, the meeting shall stand adjourned to the date and time to be appointed by him under sub-section (4-B).
(4-B) If the Officer mentioned in sub-section (4) is unable to preside at the meeting, he may, after recording his reasons, adjourn the meeting to such other date and time as he may appoint, but not less than 25 days from the date of appointed for the meeting under sub-section (3). He shall without delay inform the Collector in writing of the adjournment of the meeting. The Collector shall give to the [elected members]3 at least ten days notice of the next meeting in the manner prescribed under sub-section (3).] (5) [Save as provided in sub-section (4-A) and (4-B) a meeting5 convened for the purpose of considering a motion under this section shall not be adjourned.
(6) As soon as the meeting convened under this section commences, the Presiding Officer shall read to the Zila Panchayat the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and declare it to be open for debate.
(7) No debate on the motion under this section shall be adjourned.
(8) Such debate shall automatically terminate on the expiration of two hours from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting, if it is not concluded earlier. On the conclusion of the debate or on the expiration of the said period of two hours, whichever is earlier, the motion shall be put to vote [which shall be held in the prescribed manner by secret ballot.] (9) The Presiding Officer shall not speak on the merits of the motion and he shall not be entitled to vote thereon.
(10) A copy of the minutes of the meeting together with a copy of the motion and the result of voting thereon shall be forwarded on the termination of the meeting by the Presiding Officer to the State Government and to the Collector.
(11) If the motion is carried with the support of [more than half] of the total number of [elected members] of the Zila Panchayat for the time being-
(a) the Presiding Officer shall cause the fact to be published by affixing forthwith a notice thereof on the notice board of the office of the Zila Panchayat and also by notifying the same in the Gazette; and
(b) the Adhyaksha [or the [x x x]], as the case may be, shall cease to hold office as such and vacate the same on and from the date next following that on which the said notice is affixed on the notice board of the office of the Zila Panchayat.
(12) If the motion is not carried as aforesaid or if the meeting could not be held for want of a quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the Adhyaksha [or the [x x x]], as the case may be, shall be received until after the expiration of [one year] from the date of such meeting.
(13) No notice of a motion under this section shall be received within [two years] of the assumption of office by an Adhyaksha [or the [xxx]], as the case may be."
22. As per Section 28 (12) of the 1961 Act, if the motion could not be done for want of quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the Chairman shall be received until after expiration of one year from the date of No Confidence Motion.
23. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners and other elected Members could not attend the meeting in view of the obstructions created by the supporters of respondent No.4 and under these circumstances, provisions of Section 28 (12) would not bar a fresh meeting for one year. He further submitted that respondent No.2 should not have dissolved the meeting for want of quorum, but, should have adjourned the meeting as it could not be convened. He further submits that at any rate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioners and other elected Members were disabled from attending the meeting due to a successful obstruction created by the respondent No.4 and his supporters and thereby the meeting had to be dissolved for want of quorum, there could be no application of the provisions contained under Section 28 (12) of the 1961 Act which would stand in the way of the petitioners moving the No Confidence Motion for a period of one year. He is placing reliance on the decisions of Jacob Abraham & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [1998 SCC OnLine Ker 220], Jawahar Lal v. State of U.P. and others [2008 SCC OnLine All 2188] and Padma Singla v. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 24872 of 2018 decided on 8.1.2019 and Kiran Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2018) 7 SCC 521] and has prayed for quashing of impugned order dated 14.5.2019 and for a direction to the respondent No.2 to proceed afresh with the No Confidence Motion and to immediately convene a meeting as per Adhiniyam.
24. Per contra, Sri H. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.4 have raised a preliminary objection and submitted that the petitioners, who are three elected Members of Zila Panchayat, have filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order dated 14.5.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer/Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC)-II, Rai Bareli under Section 28 of the 1961 Act adjourning the meeting on the ground of want of quorum as not a single elected Member of Zila Panchayat came to attend meeting are not entitled to challenge the same as they do not constitute majority of (more than half) Zila Panchayat Members as minimum 27 Members are required to constitute the majority for passing of the No Confidence Motion against the Chairman and not all 31 Members who submitted the No Confidence Motion against the Chairman on the basis of which District Magistrate has convened the meeting on 14.5.2019 to consider No Confidence Motion have joined as petitioners in the aforesaid Writ Petition to indicate their grievance with respect to adjournment of meeting by the Presiding Officer. Only person/s aggrieved can file the writ petition. Since other members of the Zila Panchayat have not filed the writ petition, the instant petition filed by three Members of Zila Panchayat would not be maintainable as they have not filed the writ petition in representative capacity nor the present petition is Public Interest Litigation. They further submitted that except the petitioners, no other member had ever complained before any authority that they were prevented from going to attend the meeting on 14.5.2019 for consideration of No Confidence Motion against respondent No.4/Chairman, Zila Panchayat. In respect of allegation of mala fide against District Magistrate and Dinesh Pratap Singh, MLC, the brother of respondent No.4, they have not been impleaded in the array of respondents to the writ petition by name and therefore, those allegations are not maintainable in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'All India State Bank Officers Federation and others v. Union of India and others [(1997) 9 SCC 151].
25. On merits, they submitted that the petitioners have stated false and fabricated facts not only in the writ petition but also in the rejoinder affidavits filed by them as they had alleged that the District Magistrate had not provided any security to the Members of Zila Panchayat but respondent No.2 had also not made any arrangement for maintenance of law and order and holding of free and fair voting on 14.5.2019 for consideration of No Confidence Motion by deputing sufficient number of police personnel and installation of CCTV Camera and holding of Videography.
26. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State has drawn our attention towards the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate/respondent No.2 and submitted that respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 had jointly passed an order dated 8.5.2019 directing all Sub-Divisional Magistrates, Circle Officers and In-charge/Station House Officer of P.S. Rai Bareli to provide complete security to the Members of Zila Panchayat and their families. They were also directed to ensure security and well-being of Zila Panchayat Members and their families during their rounds. No confidence is held independent and transparent manner. Adequate security was provided to the petitioners and other elected Members. The Deputy Commissioner, Labour Employment/ MGNREGA nominated two Videographers for Videography of the meeting scheduled on 14.5.2019 at 11.00 a.m. to consider No Confidence Motion. Number of police personnel were deputed for peaceful conduct of meeting. The aforesaid facts stand verified from the said Magisterial Enquiry Report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate (F&R), Rai Bareli. The petitioners have not categorically denied the averments made in the counter affidavit dated 24.5.2019 and supplementary counter affidavit dated 12.9.2019.
27. Lastly, he has submitted that the petitioners have filed fabricated documents with the rejoinder affidavit dated 30.9.2019 by filing Notary Affidavit of some of elected Members of Zila Panchayat which do not bear proper signature at the relevant pages nor does it bear the endorsement of Stamp Vendor in respect of purchase of the Stamp Paper in the name of deponent on the Notary Affidavit and they had tried to mislead this Court for making false and fabricated averments and prays for dismissal of writ petition with cost.
28. Respondent No.4 denied the allegations made in the writ petition by filing counter affidavit and stated that no obstruction was created by his supporters and as no one was present at the venue of No Confidence Motion including the petitioners and therefore the Presiding Officer dissolved the proceedings for want of quorum as per Section 28 (12) of the 1961 Act.
29. According to the learned counsel for the State, the disability must be that of the authorized officer (Additional District Judge) to convene the meeting and not that of the Members to attend the meeting for reasons beyond human control. It is not permissible for him to examine the reason as to why quoram is not satisfied. His duty is only to adjourn the meeting if there is no quoram. Once the meeting is having adjourned, there is no escape from the provisions contained under sub-section 12 and the petitioners cannot be permitted to move a No Confidence Motion within one year.
30. In the present case, the meeting was convened on the basis of written notice signed by more than half of the elected Members, but at the venue, no one was present and even the present writ petition has been filed only by three Members as the other Members have not supported the petitioners. In respect of untoward incident, a Magisterial Enquiry was held and enquiry report is on record. It shows that respondent No.4 is not at all involved in the incident which took place at Harchandpur Toll Plaza nor his supporters created any obstruction to the elected Members from attending the Meeting on 14.5.2019. The decision cited by the petitioners on Jacob Abraham & Ors. (supra) is distinguishable on facts. Even in this writ petition, affidavits of 32 elected Members are not on record to constitute majority for passing of No Confidence against respondent No.4. As per counter affidavit of opposite party No.2/District Magistrate, there is no involvement of respondent No.4 and detailed Magisterial Enquiry has already been conducted in the matter by the Additional District Magistrate and all the allegations have been found to be incorrect. The district administration provided the personal security to the petitioners and other Members of Zila Panchayat. The law on the subject is well settled. As no one was present at the venue of meeting and therefore, the President Officer for want of quorum dissolved the meeting.
31. Under the 1961 Act, the President of a Panchayat may be removed on a Motion of No Confidence passed by majority of more than half of elected Members of Zila Panchayat. In the present case, the District Magistrate convened a meeting for consideration of No Confidence and after sufficient compliance of the provisions, notice was issued to the elected Members and thereafter, the Presiding Officer fixed the date, time and place of meeting and at the time of meeting, the Presiding Officer was present, but in absence of elected Members of Zila Panchayat, the Motion could not be carried out for want of quorum and therefore, by reasons of the provisions of Section 28 (12) of the 1961 Act, the Presiding Officer passed the impugned order.
32. The elected Members including the petitioners could not come at the appointed time and venue of the meeting and therefore, for want of quorum, the meeting was dissolved. As per affidavits and statement of elected Members which were recorded before the Additional District Magistrate in a Magisterial Enquiry, none of the members supported the version of the petitioners nor stated that due to the obstruction created by the respondent No.4, they were unable to attend the meeting at 11:00 A.M. on 14.5.2019.
33. In the case of Jacob Abraham & Ors. (supra), there was a provision in Sub-Section (6) of Section 157 of Kerala Panchayat Act, 1994 that except for reasons beyond human control, the meeting shall not be adjourned. In that matter, there is a clear finding and report of the Government that the Members who were to move the No Confidence Motion were disabled from coming to the place of meeting at the appointed time, due to deliberate and effective obstruction created by the opposite party. The situation was such that it was beyond the control of the second respondent to have the presence of the petitioners at the meeting place at the appointed time so as to convene the meeting and therefore, the Division Bench has held that it is a clear case where the 2nd respondent should have adjourned the meeting for reasons beyond human control and he should not have proceeded with the meeting nor dissolved the same for the reason that there was no quorum.
34. In the case in hand, there is no provision in Section 28 (12) of the 1961 Act that for the reasons beyond control, if the effective obstruction is created by the supporters of respondent No.4 displaying the petitioners and other elected Members from attending the meeting, the same was a reason beyond human control obliging the Presiding Officer to dissolve the meeting. No material has been brought on record to prove that the elected Members of the Zila Panchayat obstructed by force from exercising their right from attending the meeting on 14.5.2019 at 11 A.M. Detailed provisions are made under Section 28 of 1961 Act as to how Motion for No Confidence in the matter of Adhyaksh could be brought by the Members of the Zila Panchayat. Provisions of Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 28 are specifically enacted to facilitate consideration of the No Confidence Motion without any impediment whatsoever. The Statute has taken so much care to protect the elected Members of the Zila Panchayat to move No Confidence Motion against the President/Adhyaksh.
35. In respect of the incident on 14.5.2019, the District Magistrate on 15.5.2019 appointed the Additional District Magistrate to hold Magisterial Enquiry into the allegations of abduction, violence etc., on 14.5.2019 by the petitioners. In the Magisterial Enquiry, only 18 members of the Zila Panchayat out of 52 members were participated. The Enquiry Officer after examination of the affidavits filed by the Members of Zila Panchayat and other witnesses and statement made on oath has recorded a finding that the District Administration has made adequate security for peaceful conduct of meeting on 14.5.2019 and also made arrangement for CCTV Camera and Videography of the Zila Panchayat campus where the meeting was scheduled to be held. Sufficient arrangement was made by the District Administration in different development Blocks so that Members of Zila Panchayat come freely and have safe passage to the Zila Panchayat Campus for participation in the meeting. The Enquiry Officer was also held that barring two members of Zila Panchayat, Rakesh Kumar Awasthi and Kisan Lal Lodhi, no one appear to have been affected out of 31 members, who moved No Confidence Motion and even though the No Confidence Motion could have been passed with a participation of 27 members but not a single Members attended the meeting out of 52 members when the meeting was adjourned for want of quoram. On the basis of statement recorded and affidavit submitted by 18 Members of Zila Panchayat, it appears that they have not participated in the meeting scheduled for 14.5.2019 on their own free will.
36. The Enquiry Officer also noted the contradiction in the statement of most of the 18 members who appeared before him in the enquiry and after scrutinizing the statement and affidavit found that they did not come for meeting on 14.5.2019 on their own free will despite signing the proposal for No Confidence Motion as they wanted to build pressure upon the respondent No.4/Chairman of the Zila Panchayat to get work done in their constituency.
37. In the facts and circumstances of this case, sub-section 12 of Section 28 of the Act cannot be applied. The reference to 'if the meeting could not be held for want of a quorum' in sub-section 12 of section 28 of the Act is in respect of a meeting held under normal circumstances, not in a case where by deliberate action of one group, the other group is obstructed from attending the meeting resulting in lack of quorum. As sufficient security was provided to the elected members of Zila Panchayat and in this writ petition, except three elected members, none of the members supported the case of the petitioners nor respondents have supported the incidents or the police could not, in spite of best efforts, take the petitioners to the Panchayat office. The allegations made in the writ petition and the affidavits sworn by the petitioners are denied by the respondents. During the course of hearing also, respondents vehemently opposed the contentions, which was raised in the writ petition as well as affidavits and have stated that affidavit of the petitioners is incorrect.
38. If, elected members of the Zila Panchayat are obstructed by force by exercising their right to attend the meeting of the No Confidence Motion and/or to exercise their right to vote in the meeting, they could have filed their affidavit(s) in support of the writ petition. At the place of venue, none of the members were present to attend the meeting at 11:00 A.M. on 14.5.2019, therefore, the Presiding Officer had no option but to adjourn the meeting for want of quorum.
39. The decision in the case of Jacob Abrahm and others Vs. State of Kerala and others (supra) is distinguishable and the same would not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
40. In Kiran Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra), there is no allegation that the meeting was convened to consider the previous notice dated 9.10.2017, as provided in Section 15 of the U. P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 and the motion was not challenged on any other ground or the lack of quorum. On 31.10.2017, another written notice of intention to make the motion of no confidence was delivered to the District Magistrate, who issued notice on 07.11.2017 to convene a meeting of Kshettra Panchayat for consideration of the motion of no confidence at 10.30 a.m. on 27.11.2017 in the office of Kshettra Panchayat. On the said date, in the presence of the authorized officer, the vote of no confidence motion was considered and, after casting of votes, the no confidence motion was passed against the appellant therein. The contention of the appellant against whom no confidence motion was passed, was considered by the Apex Court and the Apex Court opined that once a notice is given under Section 15(12) of the U. P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, another notice of no confidence shall not be received until after expiration of one year. Accordingly, the Apex Court rejected the motion by holding that the condition precedent for stipulation of the period of one year after the expiration from the date of such meeting are dependent on three situations, namely, (i) if the motion is not carried out as contemplated under Section 15 (11) of the U. P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961; (ii) if the meeting would not be held for want of the quorum; and (iii) the notice of no confidence motion should be in respect of the same Pramukh. As the conditions precedent were not satisfied the scheme engrafted under Section 15 of the U. P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 and, therefore, dismissed the appeal.
41. In the case in hand, issue is entirely different and, therefore, para-19 of Kiran Pal Singh (supra) would not help in any way to the petitioners.
42. In the case of Padma Singla (supra), the Deputy Commissioner, Jind has stated in his reply/affidavit that he received an urgent message from Secretariat to attend an urgent meeting in relation to the strike in his area also, therefore, he was unable to convene the meeting and had gone to Secretariat for attending the urgent meeting that was called by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Home Department. Thereafter, second notice for holding the alleged second meeting for considering the Motion of No Confidence was issued. An objection was raised to the effect that there is prohibition to issue second notice for consideration of no confidence motion as per the provisions of sub-seection 2 of Section 123 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Rules, 1995 within one year from the failure of the first Motion and the said second notice was challenged by filing writ petition. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, after considering the report/affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner, was of the opinion that in a democratic set up, the will of the majority should be given due weight and should prevail and not in the manner as contended by the petitioner that without considering and testing the proposal for the Motion of No Confidence by mere failure to hold meeting, the same should amount to last failure. Such interpretation would not be harmonious looking to the democratic principles. Accordingly, on placing reliance upon Kiran Pal Singh (supra), the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition.
43. Here, there is no report either by the Presiding Officer or by the District Magistrate that there was unrest or due to the obstruction created by the respondent no.4 or by the opposite side, they could not attend the meeting of No Confidence Motion.
44. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that situation was not beyond the control of the petitioners to attend the meeting of No Confidence Motion.
45. For the above-mentioned reasons, we find no substance in the plea that the elected members were obstructed by the opposite side and because of that they could not attend the meeting of No Confidence Motion on 14.5.2019 at 11:00 A.M. and the reasons were beyond their control and the learned Presiding Officer should not have presided with the meeting and instead of dissolving the same for want of quorum, he could have fixed the meeting for some other date.
46. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
[Alok Mathur, J.] [Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.] Order Date :- 10th December, 2019 lakshman/Ajit