Allahabad High Court
Ghanshyam Singh vs State Of U.P. & 5 Others on 11 December, 2014
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari, Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Reserved on 25.11.2014 Delivered on 11.12.2014 Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 56928 of 2014 Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav, Rakesh Pande, Saral Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., N.C.Tripathi, Suresh Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.
(Per Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.)
1. We have heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel who has appeared for the writ petitioner, Sri Suresh Singh on behalf of State-respondents 1 and 2 and Sri N.C. Tripathi, who has appeared on behalf of the members of the Kshetra Panchayat-Rampur Maniharan, District-Saharanpur arrayed as respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to a notice dated 14.10.2014 issued by the Collector, Saharanpur acting upon a requisition submitted by 52 members of the Kshetra Panchayat aforementioned expressing 'no confidence' in the petitioner who was the elected Block Pramukh. Taking cognizance of the aforesaid requisition, the Collector, in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam 1961'), put the petitioner to notice and conveyed to him that the aforesaid motion expressing 'no confidence' would be considered in the meeting of the Kshetra Panchayat to be held on 1.11.2014. Initially, when the present writ petition came up for admission on 30.10.2014, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the matter on merits, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for restraining the holding of the meeting on 1.11.2014. It was however provided that the result of the aforesaid meeting would abide by the fate of the present writ petition.
3. During the course of hearing and upon exchange of affidavits between the contesting parties, we were informed that the meeting for considering the resolution of 'no confidence' was held on 1.11.2014, when out of 40 members, 39 voted in favor of the resolution; and therefore, it was submitted that an overwhelming majority has expressed 'no confidence' in the petitioner. Out of the 40 members present, 39 had voted in favour of the resolution with the petitioner alone not casting any vote.
4. The learned counsel Sri Rakesh Pande appearing in support of the writ petition has submitted that earlier also, a notice for considering a 'no confidence motion' against the petitioner had been moved by a member of the Kshetra Panchayat on 26.6.2012. Upon receipt of the aforesaid notice, the Collector Saharanpur had passed an order requiring the Pariyojana Nideshak, Zila Gram Vikas Abhikaran, Saharanpur to verify the genuineness of the signatures made upon the requisition submitted before him. Sri Pande contended that upon such inquiry being held, the Collector by his order dated 7.7.2012 held that the requisition had not been validly submitted, signatures appearing thereon had been denied by the members and therefore, no notice upon the said requisition was issued by the Collector. Despite the aforesaid history of the dispute, the Collector, this time around, without verifying the genuineness of signatures of members appearing on the requisition dated 13.10.2014, issued the impugned notice dated 14.10.2014 fixing 1.11.2014 as the date for consideration of the motion for 'no confidence'.
5. Sri Pande submitted that Section 15 of the Adhimiyam 1961 conferred a discretion in the Collector to undertake an inquiry in respect of the genuineness of signatures appearing on the requisition. This discretion, he submitted, ought to have been exercised in light of the earlier order passed by the Collector himself on 7.7.2012. Sri Pande in support of his submission invited our attention to the affidavits dated 8th October, 2014, submitted by various members of the Kshetra Panchayat concerned as also the affidavits dated 15.10.2014 (brought on record by means of a supplementary affidavit) to assert that the majority of the members denied having submitted any requisition; and even otherwise, the affidavits in question being in proof of support of the majority of members in favour of the petitioner.
6. Sri Pande contended that the Collector being statutorily bound to undertake an inquiry with respect to the genuineness of signatures, has acted arbitrarily and which has materially affected the entire proceedings including result of the meeting. He further submitted that the issue as to whether the Collector was bound to undertake an inquiry upon receipt of a requisition expressing 'no confidence' in an elected member was an isg consideration before this Court in a Reference made to a larger Bench in Smt. Sheela Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2014(1)ADJ717.
7. Sri Suresh Singh, the learned Standing Counsel, who has appeared for the State-respondents, has submitted that there was no material before the Collector as on 14.10.2014 which could have cast a doubt upon the validity of the requisition submitted before him. He has submitted that the Collector on 13.10.2014 was served with a notice of requisition expressing 'no confidence' in the petitioner through Sri Pradeep Kumar, a member of Kshetra Panchayat concerned supported by affidavits of 52 members. He has further submitted, that the so-called affidavits appended as Annexure 6 to the writ petition were never presented before the District Magistrate, Saharanpur nor were they submitted before him for consideration before the issuance of the impugned notice dated 14.10.2014. In this connection, he invited the attention of the Court to various affidavits which are although dated 8.10.2014 but were evidently sworn and verified only on 15.10.2014. Referring to the other affidavits (brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit), he has submitted that all the aforesaid affidavits were again stated to have been sworn only on 15.10.2014. He further submitted that in any view of the matter, neither the other affidavits dated 8.10.2014 nor the affidavits dated 15.10.2014 disputed or denied the submission of the requisition before the Collector on 13.10.2014. Sri Singh has taken us through the contents of the two sets of affidavits referred to above to buttress his submission that in none of the affidavits the signatures of the members appended to the requisition dated 13.10.2014 were denied nor did any of the deponents of the aforesaid affidavits deny the submission of the requisition dated 13.10.2014 before the Collector.
8. Sri Singh thereafter has referred to the averments made in Paragraphs 29 and 32 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State-respondents to assert that out of the 37 members who are stated to have executed affidavits on 8.10.2014, 25 members had affirmed the affidavits appended to the requisition dated 13.10.2014 evidencing their intention of moving the motion. He further submitted that out of the 37 members, who are alleged to have been signed the affidavits forming part of Annexure 6 to the writ petition, 15 members had, in fact, participated in the meeting held on 1.11.2014 and had voted in favor of the motion for 'no confidence' moved against the petitioner. Sri Singh has lastly contended that one cannot lose sight of the fact that 39 members out of 40 present in the meeting held on 1.11.2014 had voted in favor of the resolution brought against the Petitioner
9. Sri N.C. Tripathi, who has appeared for the respondents 3, 4 and 5, has submitted that an overwhelming majority of the members of Kshetra Panchayat concerned had participated in the meeting held on 01.11.2014 and had unanimously voted in favour of the motion expressing 'no confidence' in the petitioner. He would urge that this Court must take judicial notice of the result of the meeting convened and validly held on 1.11.2014 and give effect to the will of the majority members of Kshetra Panchayat. He submitted that the will of the majority embodied in the voice of all the members present in the meeting held on 1.11.2014 and who had voted in favor of the motion against the petitioner, is not disputed and therefore, the aforesaid decision deserves to be implemented and the petitioner deserves to be removed from the post of Block Pramukh. In this connection, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Bhanumati And Others Vs. State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary And Others; (2010) 12 SCC 1 to submit that these institutions of local Self Government must be permitted to run on democratic principles and the persons heading such public bodies could continue only if they enjoy the confidence of persons who comprise and constitute such bodies.
10. Sri Tripathi further reiterated the submissions advanced by Suresh Singh insofar as the two sets of affidavits aforementioned are concerned and contended that these affidavits did not in any manner invalidate the issuance of the impugned notice by the Collector, Saharanpur on 14.10.2014 and even otherwise, did not constitute any such material upon which the Collector was liable to undertake an inquiry. Sri Tripathi further submitted with reference to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Vikas Trivedi And Others Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2013 (8) ADJ 523(FB) to submit that the provisions of Section 15(3) were not mandatory and that the notice issued by the Collector on 14.10.2014 is not rendered illegal merely on account of the fact that the complete requisition along with disclosure of names of persons who had submitted the same did not accompany the notice of the Collector. Sri Tripathi, relying upon the verdict handed down by the Full Bench of this Court, submitted that the scope of enquiry by this Court in these matters would only be as to whether there has been substantial compliance with the provisions and therefore, contended that as long as substantial compliance has been established, the proceedings of 'no confidence' are not vitiated.
11. Sri Tripathi also contended that the proceedings of 'no confidence' being moved against an elected representative was a direct check referable to accountability and that recall of an elected representative ensures true, fair, honest and just representation of the electorate. In support of the aforesaid submissions, Sri Tripathi placed reliance upon the observation in Mohan Lal Tripathi Vs. District Magistrate, Raebareli, AIR 1993 SC 2042 wherein, the Apex Court had, upon consideration of the functions of these institutions of local Self Government, upheld the validity of Section 87A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 encompassing similar provisions of 'no confidence motion' being moved against the President of a Municipal Board. Sri Tripathi has further referred to a decision rendered by a Single Judge of this Court in Vimla Devi Vs. State Of U.P. [2014 (1) ADJ 140] to contend that pursuant to a 'no confidence motion', persons who hold an electoral office, cannot be permitted to continue in office inasmuch as the said measure was designed to ensure that an elected representative continues in office only till such time as he enjoys the confidence of the electorate. Referring to para materia provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the learned Single Judge has, in the aforementioned decision, held that the will of the electorate as reflected in the motion of 'no confidence', is of prime importance and required to be adhered to and consequently objections as to the validity of the notice cannot be considered after the motion of no confidence has been carried.
12. Sri Tripathi has lastly submitted that the writ petition even otherwise must fail on account of non-joinder of necessary parties viz., the members who had submitted the requisition as well as the members who had voted in support of the motion. Sri Tripathi drew our attention to the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sugandhi Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Another, W.P. No. 60813 of 2012 decided on 18.2.2014. The Division Bench of this Court in its decision has in turn relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Mathura Prasad Tiwari Vs. Assistant District Panchayat Officer, 1967 RD 17 to hold that non-impleadment of signatories to the requisition and those who had participated in the meeting for considering the 'no confidence motion' would be fatal. He, therefore, submitted that on account of non-impleadment of such members, the present writ petition was in any view of the matter liable to be dismissed.
13. We now proceed to consider the submissions of the contesting parties hereinafter
14. Dealing with the last contention urged by Sri Tripathi, first we are constrained to observe that although this writ petition came up for final disposal with the consent of the parties post the holding of meeting on 1.11.2014, the writ petitioner chose not to implead such members of the Kshetra Panchayat who had submitted the requisition and had also participated in the 'no confidence motion'. Insofar as this issue is concerned, the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Sugandhi Devi (supra) clearly applies to the facts of this case. In the said decision also, the resolution of 'no confidence' against the petitioner therein was permitted to be voted upon, but it was provided that the same would be subject to the result of the writ petition. In the instant writ petition also, this Court, by its order dated 30.10.2014, had clearly provided, that the meeting may continue but the result of the aforesaid meeting would abide by the result of the present writ petition. In view of the above and in light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench of this Court in Mathura Prasad Tiwari (supra), we are constrained to hold that the petition suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary parties.
15. While we could have closed proceedings here since the parties have proceeded to address us on merits at some length, it would be appropriate to consider the rival contentions so urged before us.
16. The importance of these institutions of Local Self Government and the basic principles on which democratic institutions work namely, representation of the will of the majority must clearly be adhered to and implemented as has been held by the Apex Court in the judgments aforementioned. The provisions engrafted in the statute with respect to a 'no confidence motion' being brought against an elected representative are themselves based on the salutory principle that in a democracy, persons holding public offices/elected office could continue only till such time as they enjoy the confidence of the persons who comprise such bodies. The resolution of 'no confidence' passed against an elected representative, in fact, embodies the will of the electorate and must be accorded seminal importance. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the objections raised and urged on behalf of the petitioner pale into insignificance in light of the result of the meeting held on 1.11.2014. Be that as it may, we proceed to deal with the main contentions on which the contesting parties pivoted their submissions.
17. The primary submission of Sri Pande with regard to the validity of the proceedings in question and initiation thereof rested upon firstly, the order of the District Magistrate dated 7.7.2012, and secondly, on the two sets of affidavit. It was based upon the aforesaid twin facts that Sri Pande contended that the initiation of proceedings by the Collector, Saharanpur was illegal and further amounted to a failure to exercise discretion otherwise vested in law.
18. However, upon a close scrutiny of the aforesaid two grounds urged by Sri Pande, we find that the same do not truly carry the weight and substance sought to be read into them by him. A reading of the order dated 7.7.2012 passed by the Collector, Saharanpur shows that even in this order, the Collector did not record any finding with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the signatures of members appearing on the requisition. All that is recorded in the aforesaid order is that a majority of the members could not present themselves on the date of inquiry fixed by the Collector. The Collector further found that out of the 46 members, who had signed the requisition, 18 members had expressed confidence in the petitioner leaving only 28 members of the Kshetra Panchayat and since this number was less than half of the total number of the Kshetra Panchayat, there was no occasion to proceed with the meeting to consider the motion of 'no confidence'.
19. A careful reading of the two sets of affidavit dated 8.10.2014 and 15.10.2014 also establishes that in none of them had any of the deponents disputed the veracity of their signatures on the requisition notice. The affidavits appended as Annexure 6 to the writ petition are mostly dated 8.10.2014, but have been verified only on 15.10.2014. Even otherwise, all that these affidavits affirm is that the deponents have confidence in the petitioner and that they are otherwise satisfied with his work and conduct. We are, therefore, of the opinion that these affidavits do not by any stretch of imagination materially affect the validity of the notice issued by the Collector initiating the process for considering the motion of 'no confidence' nor do they materially affect the final result of the meeting held on 1.11.2014. This is additionally so in light of what is brought on record by the State in its affidavit where it contends that the requisition itself was supported by affidavits of 52 members and that out of the 37 members whose affidavits are appended as Annexure 6 to the writ petition, 15 members had participated in the meeting held on 1.11.2014 and voted in favour of the 'no confidence motion'. It is also relevant to highlight here that out of the 37 members whose affidavits form Annexure 6 to the writ petition, 25 members had signed affidavits given in support of the requisition.
20. Coming then to the argument urged by Sri Pandey that the Collector was obliged to undertake an inquiry with regard to the veracity of the signatures of members who had signed the requisition suffice it to state that none of these affidavits formed material before the Collector prior to the issuance of the notice impugned herein and dated 14th October, 2014. The State has categorically contended in Paragraph 29 of its affidavit that the affidavits of 44 members forming Annexure 6 to the writ petition were never presented before the Collector. In reply thereto, it is contended by the petitioner that these affidavits dated 8.10.2014 and 15.10.2014 were personally handed over to the District Magistrate by the petitioner along with several other members. However, there is no evidence brought on record by the petitioner in support of this assertion. More fundamentally, the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the affidavits dated 8.10.2014 were all affirmed only on 15.10.2014. In view of the above, it is clear that as on 14.10.2014, the Collector had no affidavit which even remotely tended to suggest that the requisition had not been validly submitted or that requisition had been submitted on the strength of forged and fabricated signatures.
21. Last but not the least, we must necessarily take notice of the fact that in the meeting held on 1.11.2014 attended by 40 members including the petitioner herein, 39 members (leaving only the petitioner) had voted in favour of the resolution and therefore expressed 'no confidence' in him. This fact should have been sufficient for the petitioner to lay to rest his challenge to the 'no confidence motion' moved against him.
22. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the present writ petition and accordingly dismiss the same.
23. No costs.
Order Date :- 11.12.2014 Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.) (Dinesh Maheshwari, J.) A.F.R. Reserved on 25.11.2014 Delivered on 11.12.2014 Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 56928 of 2014 Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav, Rakesh Pande, Saral Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., N.C.Tripathi, Suresh Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.
(Per Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.)
1. We have heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel who has appeared for the writ petitioner, Sri Suresh Singh on behalf of State-respondents 1 and 2 and Sri N.C. Tripathi, who has appeared on behalf of the members of the Kshetra Panchayat-Rampur Maniharan, District-Saharanpur arrayed as respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to a notice dated 14.10.2014 issued by the Collector, Saharanpur acting upon a requisition submitted by 52 members of the Kshetra Panchayat aforementioned expressing 'no confidence' in the petitioner who was the elected Block Pramukh. Taking cognizance of the aforesaid requisition, the Collector, in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam 1961'), put the petitioner to notice and conveyed to him that the aforesaid motion expressing 'no confidence' would be considered in the meeting of the Kshetra Panchayat to be held on 1.11.2014. Initially, when the present writ petition came up for admission on 30.10.2014, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the matter on merits, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for restraining the holding of the meeting on 1.11.2014. It was however provided that the result of the aforesaid meeting would abide by the fate of the present writ petition.
3. During the course of hearing and upon exchange of affidavits between the contesting parties, we were informed that the meeting for considering the resolution of 'no confidence' was held on 1.11.2014, when out of 40 members, 39 voted in favor of the resolution; and therefore, it was submitted that an overwhelming majority has expressed 'no confidence' in the petitioner. Out of the 40 members present, 39 had voted in favour of the resolution with the petitioner alone not casting any vote.
4. The learned counsel Sri Rakesh Pande appearing in support of the writ petition has submitted that earlier also, a notice for considering a 'no confidence motion' against the petitioner had been moved by a member of the Kshetra Panchayat on 26.6.2012. Upon receipt of the aforesaid notice, the Collector Saharanpur had passed an order requiring the Pariyojana Nideshak, Zila Gram Vikas Abhikaran, Saharanpur to verify the genuineness of the signatures made upon the requisition submitted before him. Sri Pande contended that upon such inquiry being held, the Collector by his order dated 7.7.2012 held that the requisition had not been validly submitted, signatures appearing thereon had been denied by the members and therefore, no notice upon the said requisition was issued by the Collector. Despite the aforesaid history of the dispute, the Collector, this time around, without verifying the genuineness of signatures of members appearing on the requisition dated 13.10.2014, issued the impugned notice dated 14.10.2014 fixing 1.11.2014 as the date for consideration of the motion for 'no confidence'.
5. Sri Pande submitted that Section 15 of the Adhimiyam 1961 conferred a discretion in the Collector to undertake an inquiry in respect of the genuineness of signatures appearing on the requisition. This discretion, he submitted, ought to have been exercised in light of the earlier order passed by the Collector himself on 7.7.2012. Sri Pande in support of his submission invited our attention to the affidavits dated 8th October, 2014, submitted by various members of the Kshetra Panchayat concerned as also the affidavits dated 15.10.2014 (brought on record by means of a supplementary affidavit) to assert that the majority of the members denied having submitted any requisition; and even otherwise, the affidavits in question being in proof of support of the majority of members in favour of the petitioner.
6. Sri Pande contended that the Collector being statutorily bound to undertake an inquiry with respect to the genuineness of signatures, has acted arbitrarily and which has materially affected the entire proceedings including result of the meeting. He further submitted that the issue as to whether the Collector was bound to undertake an inquiry upon receipt of a requisition expressing 'no confidence' in an elected member was an isg consideration before this Court in a Reference made to a larger Bench in Smt. Sheela Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2014(1)ADJ717.
7. Sri Suresh Singh, the learned Standing Counsel, who has appeared for the State-respondents, has submitted that there was no material before the Collector as on 14.10.2014 which could have cast a doubt upon the validity of the requisition submitted before him. He has submitted that the Collector on 13.10.2014 was served with a notice of requisition expressing 'no confidence' in the petitioner through Sri Pradeep Kumar, a member of Kshetra Panchayat concerned supported by affidavits of 52 members. He has further submitted, that the so-called affidavits appended as Annexure 6 to the writ petition were never presented before the District Magistrate, Saharanpur nor were they submitted before him for consideration before the issuance of the impugned notice dated 14.10.2014. In this connection, he invited the attention of the Court to various affidavits which are although dated 8.10.2014 but were evidently sworn and verified only on 15.10.2014. Referring to the other affidavits (brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit), he has submitted that all the aforesaid affidavits were again stated to have been sworn only on 15.10.2014. He further submitted that in any view of the matter, neither the other affidavits dated 8.10.2014 nor the affidavits dated 15.10.2014 disputed or denied the submission of the requisition before the Collector on 13.10.2014. Sri Singh has taken us through the contents of the two sets of affidavits referred to above to buttress his submission that in none of the affidavits the signatures of the members appended to the requisition dated 13.10.2014 were denied nor did any of the deponents of the aforesaid affidavits deny the submission of the requisition dated 13.10.2014 before the Collector.
8. Sri Singh thereafter has referred to the averments made in Paragraphs 29 and 32 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State-respondents to assert that out of the 37 members who are stated to have executed affidavits on 8.10.2014, 25 members had affirmed the affidavits appended to the requisition dated 13.10.2014 evidencing their intention of moving the motion. He further submitted that out of the 37 members, who are alleged to have been signed the affidavits forming part of Annexure 6 to the writ petition, 15 members had, in fact, participated in the meeting held on 1.11.2014 and had voted in favor of the motion for 'no confidence' moved against the petitioner. Sri Singh has lastly contended that one cannot lose sight of the fact that 39 members out of 40 present in the meeting held on 1.11.2014 had voted in favor of the resolution brought against the Petitioner
9. Sri N.C. Tripathi, who has appeared for the respondents 3, 4 and 5, has submitted that an overwhelming majority of the members of Kshetra Panchayat concerned had participated in the meeting held on 01.11.2014 and had unanimously voted in favour of the motion expressing 'no confidence' in the petitioner. He would urge that this Court must take judicial notice of the result of the meeting convened and validly held on 1.11.2014 and give effect to the will of the majority members of Kshetra Panchayat. He submitted that the will of the majority embodied in the voice of all the members present in the meeting held on 1.11.2014 and who had voted in favor of the motion against the petitioner, is not disputed and therefore, the aforesaid decision deserves to be implemented and the petitioner deserves to be removed from the post of Block Pramukh. In this connection, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Bhanumati And Others Vs. State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary And Others; (2010) 12 SCC 1 to submit that these institutions of local Self Government must be permitted to run on democratic principles and the persons heading such public bodies could continue only if they enjoy the confidence of persons who comprise and constitute such bodies.
10. Sri Tripathi further reiterated the submissions advanced by Suresh Singh insofar as the two sets of affidavits aforementioned are concerned and contended that these affidavits did not in any manner invalidate the issuance of the impugned notice by the Collector, Saharanpur on 14.10.2014 and even otherwise, did not constitute any such material upon which the Collector was liable to undertake an inquiry. Sri Tripathi further submitted with reference to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Vikas Trivedi And Others Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2013 (8) ADJ 523(FB) to submit that the provisions of Section 15(3) were not mandatory and that the notice issued by the Collector on 14.10.2014 is not rendered illegal merely on account of the fact that the complete requisition along with disclosure of names of persons who had submitted the same did not accompany the notice of the Collector. Sri Tripathi, relying upon the verdict handed down by the Full Bench of this Court, submitted that the scope of enquiry by this Court in these matters would only be as to whether there has been substantial compliance with the provisions and therefore, contended that as long as substantial compliance has been established, the proceedings of 'no confidence' are not vitiated.
11. Sri Tripathi also contended that the proceedings of 'no confidence' being moved against an elected representative was a direct check referable to accountability and that recall of an elected representative ensures true, fair, honest and just representation of the electorate. In support of the aforesaid submissions, Sri Tripathi placed reliance upon the observation in Mohan Lal Tripathi Vs. District Magistrate, Raebareli, AIR 1993 SC 2042 wherein, the Apex Court had, upon consideration of the functions of these institutions of local Self Government, upheld the validity of Section 87A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 encompassing similar provisions of 'no confidence motion' being moved against the President of a Municipal Board. Sri Tripathi has further referred to a decision rendered by a Single Judge of this Court in Vimla Devi Vs. State Of U.P. [2014 (1) ADJ 140] to contend that pursuant to a 'no confidence motion', persons who hold an electoral office, cannot be permitted to continue in office inasmuch as the said measure was designed to ensure that an elected representative continues in office only till such time as he enjoys the confidence of the electorate. Referring to para materia provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the learned Single Judge has, in the aforementioned decision, held that the will of the electorate as reflected in the motion of 'no confidence', is of prime importance and required to be adhered to and consequently objections as to the validity of the notice cannot be considered after the motion of no confidence has been carried.
12. Sri Tripathi has lastly submitted that the writ petition even otherwise must fail on account of non-joinder of necessary parties viz., the members who had submitted the requisition as well as the members who had voted in support of the motion. Sri Tripathi drew our attention to the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sugandhi Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Another, W.P. No. 60813 of 2012 decided on 18.2.2014. The Division Bench of this Court in its decision has in turn relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Mathura Prasad Tiwari Vs. Assistant District Panchayat Officer, 1967 RD 17 to hold that non-impleadment of signatories to the requisition and those who had participated in the meeting for considering the 'no confidence motion' would be fatal. He, therefore, submitted that on account of non-impleadment of such members, the present writ petition was in any view of the matter liable to be dismissed.
13. We now proceed to consider the submissions of the contesting parties hereinafter
14. Dealing with the last contention urged by Sri Tripathi, first we are constrained to observe that although this writ petition came up for final disposal with the consent of the parties post the holding of meeting on 1.11.2014, the writ petitioner chose not to implead such members of the Kshetra Panchayat who had submitted the requisition and had also participated in the 'no confidence motion'. Insofar as this issue is concerned, the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Sugandhi Devi (supra) clearly applies to the facts of this case. In the said decision also, the resolution of 'no confidence' against the petitioner therein was permitted to be voted upon, but it was provided that the same would be subject to the result of the writ petition. In the instant writ petition also, this Court, by its order dated 30.10.2014, had clearly provided, that the meeting may continue but the result of the aforesaid meeting would abide by the result of the present writ petition. In view of the above and in light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench of this Court in Mathura Prasad Tiwari (supra), we are constrained to hold that the petition suffers from the vice of non-joinder of necessary parties.
15. While we could have closed proceedings here since the parties have proceeded to address us on merits at some length, it would be appropriate to consider the rival contentions so urged before us.
16. The importance of these institutions of Local Self Government and the basic principles on which democratic institutions work namely, representation of the will of the majority must clearly be adhered to and implemented as has been held by the Apex Court in the judgments aforementioned. The provisions engrafted in the statute with respect to a 'no confidence motion' being brought against an elected representative are themselves based on the salutory principle that in a democracy, persons holding public offices/elected office could continue only till such time as they enjoy the confidence of the persons who comprise such bodies. The resolution of 'no confidence' passed against an elected representative, in fact, embodies the will of the electorate and must be accorded seminal importance. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the objections raised and urged on behalf of the petitioner pale into insignificance in light of the result of the meeting held on 1.11.2014. Be that as it may, we proceed to deal with the main contentions on which the contesting parties pivoted their submissions.
17. The primary submission of Sri Pande with regard to the validity of the proceedings in question and initiation thereof rested upon firstly, the order of the District Magistrate dated 7.7.2012, and secondly, on the two sets of affidavit. It was based upon the aforesaid twin facts that Sri Pande contended that the initiation of proceedings by the Collector, Saharanpur was illegal and further amounted to a failure to exercise discretion otherwise vested in law.
18. However, upon a close scrutiny of the aforesaid two grounds urged by Sri Pande, we find that the same do not truly carry the weight and substance sought to be read into them by him. A reading of the order dated 7.7.2012 passed by the Collector, Saharanpur shows that even in this order, the Collector did not record any finding with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the signatures of members appearing on the requisition. All that is recorded in the aforesaid order is that a majority of the members could not present themselves on the date of inquiry fixed by the Collector. The Collector further found that out of the 46 members, who had signed the requisition, 18 members had expressed confidence in the petitioner leaving only 28 members of the Kshetra Panchayat and since this number was less than half of the total number of the Kshetra Panchayat, there was no occasion to proceed with the meeting to consider the motion of 'no confidence'.
19. A careful reading of the two sets of affidavit dated 8.10.2014 and 15.10.2014 also establishes that in none of them had any of the deponents disputed the veracity of their signatures on the requisition notice. The affidavits appended as Annexure 6 to the writ petition are mostly dated 8.10.2014, but have been verified only on 15.10.2014. Even otherwise, all that these affidavits affirm is that the deponents have confidence in the petitioner and that they are otherwise satisfied with his work and conduct. We are, therefore, of the opinion that these affidavits do not by any stretch of imagination materially affect the validity of the notice issued by the Collector initiating the process for considering the motion of 'no confidence' nor do they materially affect the final result of the meeting held on 1.11.2014. This is additionally so in light of what is brought on record by the State in its affidavit where it contends that the requisition itself was supported by affidavits of 52 members and that out of the 37 members whose affidavits are appended as Annexure 6 to the writ petition, 15 members had participated in the meeting held on 1.11.2014 and voted in favour of the 'no confidence motion'. It is also relevant to highlight here that out of the 37 members whose affidavits form Annexure 6 to the writ petition, 25 members had signed affidavits given in support of the requisition.
20. Coming then to the argument urged by Sri Pandey that the Collector was obliged to undertake an inquiry with regard to the veracity of the signatures of members who had signed the requisition suffice it to state that none of these affidavits formed material before the Collector prior to the issuance of the notice impugned herein and dated 14th October, 2014. The State has categorically contended in Paragraph 29 of its affidavit that the affidavits of 44 members forming Annexure 6 to the writ petition were never presented before the Collector. In reply thereto, it is contended by the petitioner that these affidavits dated 8.10.2014 and 15.10.2014 were personally handed over to the District Magistrate by the petitioner along with several other members. However, there is no evidence brought on record by the petitioner in support of this assertion. More fundamentally, the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the affidavits dated 8.10.2014 were all affirmed only on 15.10.2014. In view of the above, it is clear that as on 14.10.2014, the Collector had no affidavit which even remotely tended to suggest that the requisition had not been validly submitted or that requisition had been submitted on the strength of forged and fabricated signatures.
21. Last but not the least, we must necessarily take notice of the fact that in the meeting held on 1.11.2014 attended by 40 members including the petitioner herein, 39 members (leaving only the petitioner) had voted in favour of the resolution and therefore expressed 'no confidence' in him. This fact should have been sufficient for the petitioner to lay to rest his challenge to the 'no confidence motion' moved against him.
22. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the present writ petition and accordingly dismiss the same.
23. No costs.
Order Date :- 11.12.2014 Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.) (Dinesh Maheshwari, J.)