KIRAN PAL SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 535 · Decided: 17-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
535
KIRAN PAL SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2622 of 2018)
MAY 17, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR
AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats
Adhiniyam, 1961:
s. 15 (2) and (12) – Notice under s. 15(2) – For carrying out
no confidence motion – Against Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchyat
(Appellant) – No action taken on the notice – Another notice u/s.
15(2) – Meeting of Panchayat convened by Competent Authority
for consideration of no confidence motion – Resulting in passing
of no confidence motion – Appellant filed writ petition u/Art. 226 of
Constitution challenging the second notice on the ground that
during pendency of first notice second notice could not have been
issued in view of prohibition under sub-section (12) of s. 15 – High
Court dismissed the petition – On appeal, held: s. 15(12) comes
into play when there is meeting and motion is not carried out as per
provisions of s.15 or meeting could not be held for want of quorum
– In the present case, s. 15(12) would not be applicable as no
meeting was convened to consider the previous notice – Mere
receipt of notice would not allow prohibition under s. 15(12) to
come into play.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case, there is no allegation that
the meeting was convened to consider the previous notice dated
9th October, 2017, as provided in Section 15 of Uttar Pradesh
Kshettra Panchyats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 and the
motion was not challenged on any other ground or the lack of
quorum.  What is singularly contended is that once a notice is
given under Section 15(2), another notice of no confidence shall
not be received until after expiration of one year. The said
submission is without any substance inasmuch as the prohibition
  [2018] 4 S.C.R. 535
    535
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
under Section 15(12) would only come into play when there is
meeting and the motion is “not carried out” as per the provisions
of Section 15 or meeting could not be held for want of quorum.
As the facts of the instant case would reveal that no meeting was
convened to consider the previous notice dated 9th October, 2017,
as per the provisions of the Act. Mere receipt of a notice by the
Collector will not allow the prohibition under Section 15(12) to
come into play. That is not the purpose of the provision.
Therefore, sub-section 15(12) would not come into play. Neither
of the conditions precedent is satisfied to attract the prohibition
engrafted under Section 15(12) of the Act. [Para 20][545-D-G]
2. The legislature being empowered by the Constitution
has legislated to provide for the establishment of Kshettra
Panchayats and Zila Panchayats in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh
to undertake certain Governmental functions at Kshettra and
District levels respectively in furtherance of the principles of
democratic decentralisation of Governmental functions. It intends
to empower the Panchayats and that is why, Section 9 clearly
provides that the term of the office of Pramukh is for five years
from the date appointed for its first meeting. That brings stability
to the administration of the Gram Panchayat. Simultaneously, it
also provides that the democracy at the rural level must cherish
the values of democracy and, therefore, a Pramukh can be
removed when a vote of no confidence is passed against him.
Once the no confidence motion fails, it cannot be brought again
for one year. Sub-section (13) of Section 15 provides that no
notice of a motion under Section 15 shall be received within two
years of the assumption of office by a Pramukh.  This is in
consonance with the principle of stability of rural governance.
[Para 21] [545-H; 546-A-C]
Bhanumati etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and Others
(2010) 12 SCC 1 : [2010]  7 SCR 585 ; The Punjab
University, Chandigarh  v. Vijay Singh   Lamba 
and
Others (1976) 3 SCC 344 : [1976]  Suppl. SCR 67 –
referred to.
Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 74 ; Black’s Law
Dictionary (Second Edition) – referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
537
Case Law Reference
[2010] 7 SCR 585
   referred to
Para 3
[1976] Suppl. SCR 67
   referred to
Para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal No.2622
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 22.11.2017 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No.55499 of 2017.
Aditya Ranjan, Adv. for the Appellant.
Md. Shahid Anwar, Aamir Naseem, Gyanendra Singh, Deepak
Goel, Adv

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.