SMT. KAVITA versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 656 · Decided: 05-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
SMT. KAVITA
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2623 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam,
1961– s.15– Appellant, Block Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, was
issued no confidence motion notice by the Collector – Writ petition
filed by appellant, dismissed – Plea of appellant that there was no
clear 15 days’ notice as contemplated u/sub-s.(3) of s.15 – Held:
Rejected – Appellant avoided to receive the notice personally and
hence it was sent by post – Appellant failed to produce any material
on record to show that the notice was dispatched after the 17th day
(the day fixed for meeting, as per the notice) – Further, on appellant’s
own admission in the writ petition, it was evident that the objection
to the said notice relating to signatures of few members who had
signed the notice was taken on the 16th day itself – Another ground
urged by the appellant that the Collector ought to have enquired
into the validity of the signatures of members, who subsequently
filed affidavits stating that their signatures were obtained by fraud,
was also justly negatived by the High Court – Impugned judgment
does not warrant any interference.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The appellant had refused/avoided to receive
the notice personally and hence it was sent by post. The High
Court also found that the appellant had failed to produce any
material on record to show that the notice was dispatched after
the 17th day and that on the appellant’s own admission in the writ
petition, it was evident that the objection to the said notice was
taken on the 16th day itself relating to signatures of few members
who had signed the notice. This was a strong circumstance to
belie the tall claim of the appellant. Taking an overall view of the
  [2018] 10 S.C.R. 656
 656
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
657
matter, the High Court noted that the issue involved a disputed
question of fact and could not be decided in writ jurisdiction. At
the same time, the High Court took note of the fact that the
meeting was duly conducted as scheduled in terms of the stated
notice and the no confidence motion was passed by a majority,
against the appellant. There is no reason to depart from the
conclusion recorded by the High Court for rejecting the challenge
that no clear 15 days’ notice was given as claimed by the appellant.
Accordingly, this contention must fail and is rejected.
[Para 5] [657-A-D]
1.2  Since the stated notice has already been acted upon
and the no confidence motion has been passed against the
appellant by majority, no further enquiry into the grounds urged
by the appellant is warranted. Even the first ground urged by the
appellant that the Collector ought to have enquired into the
validity of the signatures of 10 members, who subsequently filed
affidavits stating that their signatures were obtained by fraud,
was justly negatived by the High Court. [Paras 6, 8] [661-G-H;
662-A]
Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 2015
All. 65 ; Mathura Prasad Tewari v. Assistant District
Panchayat Officer, Faizabad 1966 ALJ 612 –
approved.
Kiran Pal Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
2018 (7) SCALE 605 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
AIR 2015 All. 65
approved
Para 6
1966 ALJ 612
approved
Para 6
2018 (7) SCALE 605
relied on
Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal No. 2623
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No. 27912 of  2017.
Aditya Ranjan, Md. Shahid Anwar, Aamir Naseem, Gyanendra
Singh, Deepak Goel, Advs. for the appearing parties.
  KAVITA  v.  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against
the judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2017, passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No.27912 of 2017, whereby the
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant for challenging the no confidence motion notice issued under
Section 15 of The U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats
Adhiniyam, 1961 (for short, “the Act”).
2. A Notice was issued by the Collector/District Magistrate,
Bulandshahar, U.P., dated 15th June, 2017 on the basis of requisition
given by 32 members out of 59 members o

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