Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.31 seconds)Section 28 in Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Kiran Pal Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 17 May, 2018
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.
Section 12 in Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Jacob P.Abraham vs State Of Kerala on 30 June, 2010
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.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 157 in Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
All India State Bank Officers' ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 September, 1996
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].