Allahabad High Court
Hub Lal vs State Of U.P. & Others on 27 January, 2010
Bench: Rajes Kumar, Rakesh Sharma
Reserved
Civil Misc. (Impleadment)Application No.105225 of 2008
&
Civil Misc. Application No. 105233 of 2008
IN
Writ Petition No. 3266 of 2008
Hub Lal Vs. The State of U.P. and others
_________
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J.
(Delivered by Hon. Rakesh Sharma,J) The writ petition was presented by one Hub Lal, who was elected as Block Pramukh of Khsetra Panchayat, Block Manda, District Allahabad in February, 2006 by securing 60 votes out of 78 votes of the elected members assailing the proceedings and result of a 'No Confidence Motion' held on 10.1.2008. It was alleged by the petitioner, Hub Lal, in the writ petition that large scale irregularities and illegalities were committed by the local administration in collusion with the members of the Ruling party in holding proceedings of 'No Confidence Motion'. After exchange of the pleadings, when the case became ripe for hearing, a formal application was filed by the petitioner with a prayer that this Court may peruse official videography/C.D. prepared in pursuance of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad regarding meeting of 'No Confidence Motion' dated 10.1.2008.
Learned counsel for the parties were heard on 14.2.2008. The prayer made in the application was not opposed on behalf of the respondents and, thus, with the consent of the parties, this Court has passed a formal order on 14.2.2008 for viewing the C.D. 2 (Compact Disc) prepared after carrying out videography of the proceedings in respect of the said meeting of 'No Confidence Motion' held on 10.1.2008. This meeting was held at Block Office, Manda in the District of Allahabad.
The Court has directed that the Compact Disc shall be viewed in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties alongwith the Pairokars of the contesting parties. The said order dated 14.2.2008 finds place on record. Accordingly, the Compact Disc was viewed in the Chambers on 20th February, 2008 in the presence of the presence of learned counsel for the respective parties. Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Zafar Naiyer, learned Additional Advocate General, State of U.P. were also present in the Chambers. After viewing the Compact Disc, it was ordered to be kept in a sealed cover, which shall form part of the record. During the course of viewing the Compact Disc, large number of irregularities were pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner as per instructions of their Pairokar, who was present in the Chambers, while viewing the Compact Disc. It is also noteworthy that before viewing the Compact Disc and thereafter various affidavits, counter affidavits/rejoinder affidavits were filed. Various objections/affidavits filed by the parties in respect of videography and the contents of the Compact Disc are available on record. Written arguments were also filed by the parties. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, a judgment was delivered on 21.4.2008 wherein detailed findings were recorded by the Court after viewing the Compact Disc. The relevant findings of the Court are being reproduced below:-
"........We have seen the "CD" and found as under :3
(a) The Presiding Officer, namely Sri B.L. Saroj was sitting mum and the proceedings of the meeting are conducted by Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, the observer appointed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad who in fact ought not have perform the job or role of the Presiding Officer and he could only watch the proceedings and submit its report.
(b) The number of women members, who were present in the meeting were all having seen in the videography and had not removed their veil (Pardah) during the process of the meeting and casting of their votes. These women members were said to be women impersonating the elected women members, who while participating in the regular meeting of Kshettra Panchayat have never worn veil (Pardah) but in the meeting in question are seen wearing veil (Pardah) during the videography while meeting was going on.
We have carefully watched the "CD" in the light of the aforesaid suggestions that these women who must be Ten in numbers have never removed veil (Pardah) during videography and therefore to us it appears that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners are correct, as no reply / explanation is given to the observation made above that these women are not the elected women members of Kshettra Panchayat. They never lifted their veil (Pardah) during the course of the proceedings of the meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence. To this, there was no answer from the respondents, including the learned Additional Advocate General.
During the process of screening of "CD", it was also 4 pointed out that the observer Pankaj Kumar Shukla who was conducting the role of the Presiding Officer has handed over number of ballot papers namely more than one to one person to whom it is alleged that he was not a member of Kshettra Panchayat but was only a supporters of the respondent even to the extent that we have seen that this member was handed over many ballot papers and he casted at least five votes with these ballot papers in the ballot box. We have seen that the members were directed to cast their votes by pointing out the place and were further directed to put the same in the ballot box. The answer of learned Additional Advocate General to this process is that they asked for assistance to caste their votes, but there is no such application on record, nor any such pleading on the record and these persons if they are elected members of Kshettra Panchayat possibly cannot go seeking assistance for casting their votes. Thus this substantiate the case of petitioner that non-members were allowed entry in the meeting hall and were further allowed to cast their votes as if they are members of the Kshettra Panchayat. Therefore the explanation submitted by the respondents cannot be accepted.
In view of what we have seen in the "CD", we have come to the conclusion that the meeting dated 10th January, 2008 cannot be said to be legal and valid meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat, rather it was sham, farce and fraud on the democracy. To us it further appears that in these circumstances we have no option but to quash the proceedings and resolution passed in the meeting dated 10th January, 2008 for consideration of 5 motion of no confidence against the petitioner Hub Lal. Before concluding, we must remind the District Magistrate Allahabad that the conduct of the Presiding Officer Sri B.L. Saroj and the observer namely Pankaj Kumar Shukla clearly demonstrate that they have acted in a wholly illegal and arbitrary manner and they have not performed their duties like a Presiding Officer and observer of the meeting dated 10th January, 2008, therefore deserve to be punished suitably. The S.H.O. of police station Manda R.N. Siddharth is also liable to be punished as he did not allow the members of the Kshettra Panchayat to participate in meeting dated 10th January, 2008.
In view of what has been stated above after viewing the "CD", it is not necessary to go into further questions raised in this writ petition as we are satisfied that the meeting dated 10th January, 2008 and the resolution passed therein cannot be said to be a valid meeting and resolution. Thus, both the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The resolution dated 10th January, 2008 passed in the meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence against the petitioner Hub Lal is quashed. The petitioners are entitled for cost, which we assessed to Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), which shall be paid by the State Government to the petitioners and State Government may recover the same from the erring officers and officials."
After the aforesaid judgment was delivered, an application has been filed by Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Zila Udyan Adhikari, Allahabad, seeking his impleadment as Respondent no.13 in the 6 above writ petition, which has already been disposed of on 21.4.2008 and in addition to it another application has also been filed alongwith the Impleadment Application praying therein that some findings/strictures recorded in the judgment dated 21.4.2008 against the applicant be scored out and the directions issued for taking action against him be recalled.
This Court has heard Sarvasri V.K. Singh and Alok Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and taken note of the submissions put-forth by Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner.
Admittedly, the applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Zila Udyan Adhikari, Allahabad, vide letter No. 34/Vikas-S.T., dated 9th January, 2008 was directed to remain present in the meeting to be held on 10.1.2008 at Block Office, Manda, where a meeting in respect of 'No Confidence Motion' against Hub Lal was to be conducted. In that meeting, Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Zila Udyan Adhikari, was to act as a representative of the District Magistrate, Allahabad. It was specifically mentioned in this letter that he was to act as a Pratinidhi Ke Roop Mein Namit (representative) of the District Magistrate. Subsequent to this, a Letter No.40/Vikas-S.T., dated 9th January, 2008, was issued by the same authority, that is, the Incharge District Magistrate/Chief Development Officer, Allahabad, replacing Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Zila Udyan Adhikari, Allahabad by nominating in his place Project Director, District Village Development Agency, Allahabad as representative of the District Magistrate, Allahabad to conduct the meeting of 'No Confidence Motion' properly. Thereafter, another letter, that is, Letter No. Nil Memo/Vikas-S.T., dated 9th January, 2008 was issued by the same authority, that is, the Chief Development Authority, Allahabad 7 directing Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Zila Udyan Adhikari, Allahabad, in continuation of the earlier Letter No. 40/Vikas-S.T., dated 9th January, 2008 directing him to remain present in Block Office, Manda, Allahabad at the time of carrying out the proceedings of 'No Confidence Motion' against Hub Lal on 10.1.2008 as directed earlier in order to render proper assistance to the Project Director, Allahabad.
Admittedly, from the contents of this Letter No. Nil Memo/Vikas-S.T., dated 9th January, 2008, issued by the Chief Development Officer, Allahabad, one can gather that Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Zila Udyan Adhikari, Allahabad was directed to attend the meeting and to remain present there in order to render assistance to other authorities. This Court has noted sequence of these letters, the first being Letter No.30/Vikas-S.T., second being Letter No. 40/Vikas-S.T., the third and the last one being Letter No. Nil Memo/Vikas-S.T., in continuation of Letter No. 40/Vikas-S.T., were issued from the same office. Thus, it is evident from the language of these letters that Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Zila Udyan Adhikari, Allahabad was not a stranger to the proceedings/meeting of 'No Confidence Motion' during which he was directed to remain present and render assistance. The directions contained in the last Letter No.Nil Memo/Vikas-S.T., dated 9th January, 2008 are being quoted below:-
"..........mDr ds dze esa vkidks Hkh funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd fnukad 10-01-2008 dks mDr vfo'okl izLrko ds le; fodkl [k.M ek.Mk esa mifLFkr gksdj iw.kZ lg;ksx iznku djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA"
In view of these directions, the applicant has tried to defend himself by taking a stand in Paragraph 12 of the affidavit accompanying these applications, that when the Ballot Papers were 8 being distributed or the proceedings of 'No Confidence Motion' were being actually carried out, he was not present in the Hall where the proceedings of 'No Confidence Motion' were being carried out. He is trying to shift his burden on Sri Banshi Dhar Saroj, the Project Director, Allahabad, who was appointed as Observer to conduct the proceedings of 'No Confidence Motion' by the District Magistrate/Chief Development Officer, Allahabad.
In view of the directions contained in the letters dated 9th January, 2008, the applicant, Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Zila Udyan Adhikari, Allahabad cannot say that he was not supposed to remain present in the Meeting Hall, rather he was specifically directed to remain present at the time of holding of the meeting of 'No Confidence Motion' and the proceedings to be conducted in connection thereof. He was also directed by the aforesaid letters to render full assistance to the other authorities.
It is noteworthy that admittedly, the Compact Disc (C.D.), produced by the learned Standing Counsel, was viewed in the presence of learned counsel for the parties, their Pairokars and Sri Zafar Naiyer, learned Additional Advocate General, State of U.P. After viewing the Compact Disc (CD) and hearing the learned counsel for the contesting parties, this Court has recorded findings on the basis of statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, on the instructions received to state before the Court, that the one of the representative/observer, that is, Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, nominated by the District Magistrate, Allahabad was performing the Role of the Presiding Officer. He has handedover Ballot Paper to one person, who, it was alleged that was not a Member of Kshetra Panchayat, but only was a supporter of other party. A finding was recorded by the Court that the Presiding 9 Officer, Sri Banshi Dhar Saroj, was sitting keeping mum and the proceedings of the meeting of 'No Confidence Motion' was, in fact, conducted by Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, who ought not to have performed role of the Presiding Officer. As per the letters dated 9th January, 2008 issued by the Incharge District Magistrate, Allahabad, Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Zila Udyan Adhikari, Allahabad, Applicant, was only asked to render assistance to the other authorities. As is evident from the aforesaid letters, the applicant was only asked to act as a representative of the District Magistrate, Allahabad and to render assistance.
It is relevant to mention here that while adjudicating the dispute, the Court has to rely upon submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties as the learned counsel appearing in this Court are also Officers of the Court. This Court has taken due caution and care while viewing the Compact Disc in the presence of learned counsel for the parties, that is, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, who was representing State of U.P., the District Magistrate, Allahabad, Chief Development Officer, Allahabad, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meza, Allahabad, Project Director, Allahabad, Station Officer, Manda, Block Development Officer, Manda and Sri Zafar Naiyer, Additional Advocate General, State of U.P., one of the Apex Law Officer of the State, who were present in the Chambers. This Court has recorded its findings in the order dated 21.4.2008 after carefully viewing the Compact Disc, taking note of the events and happenings, which took place in the meeting of 'No Confidence Motion' in the Block Office, Manda, Allahabd. This Court has also taken note of the affidavits and submissions put-forth by the learned counsel for the contesting parties.
10In view of the discussions made above, the findings recorded by the Court in its order dated 21.4.2008 do not require any interference. Accordingly, both the applications appear to be misconceived and are rejected. The Applicant has failed to persuade the Court to implead him as Respondent no. 13 in the writ petition and to score out the strictures/observations recorded against him and to recall the directions for taking action against him.
27.1.2010 bgs/-