eng
competition

Text Practice Mode

High Court Judgement/Order 09

created Apr 14th, 13:58 by Shivani


8


Rating

500 words
58 completed
00:00
Petitioner :- Smt. Rubi Singh  
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others  
Petitioner Counsel :- UN Sharma, NC Tripathi  
Respondent Counsel :- Ravi Kiran Jain, Indra Mani Tripathi, Ajai.Kr.Misra, CSC.  
 
Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.  
Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal,J.  
1. This case involves with the interpretation of explanation of sub-section (3) of Section 15 {Section 15(3)} of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (the Act).  
 
2. The basic question is, in case there was a stay order from a competent court against the motion of no confidence, then what period is to be excluded in computing the period of 30 days mentioned in section 15(3)(i) of the Act.  
 
THE FACTS  
3. Smt. Rubi Singh (the Petitioner) was elected as Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat Barsathi, Jaunpur (the Kshettra Panchayat). She took oath of Pramukh and assumed charge on 18.3.2010.  
 
4. The number of elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat is 89. Out of these elected 89 members, 58 members gave a notice in writing to the Collector, Jaunpur (the Collector) on 18.6.2012 to convene a meeting to consider motion of no confidence against the Petitioner. The notice was accompanied with the motion of no confidence against the Petitioner.  
 
5. The Collector issued a notice on 19.6.2012 convening the meeting on 15.7.2012 to consider motion of no confidence against the Petitioner. However, no meeting could be held as the Petitioner filed writ petition no. 32722 of 2012 challenging the notice dated 19.6.2012 and obtained an interim order on 13.7.2012.  
 
6. Against the aforesaid interim order, Smt. Hirawati Devi (Respondent-6) filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 20951 of 2012 (the SLP) before the Supreme Court.  
 
7. The counsel for the parties agreed before the Supreme Court that the writ petition no. 32722 of 2012 filed by the Petitioner be allowed; the notice dated 19.6.2012 be quashed; and the Collector may proceed in accordance with law.  
 
8. In view of the agreement, the Supreme Court disposed of the SLP on 30.7.2012. By this order,  
The notice dated 19.6.2012 convening the meeting to consider no confidence motion against the Petitioner on 15.7.2012 was quashed; and  
The Collector was directed to proceed in accordance with law in pursuance of the notice given to him on 18.6.2012.  
 
9. The Collector issued fresh notice dated 3.8.2012 fixing 19.8.2012 to consider the motion for no confidence against the Petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.  
 
10. The present writ petition was entertained on 17.8.2012 and an order was passed to the effect that:  
The meeting to consider motion of no confidence may be held on 19.8.2012. However, the result may not be given effect to; and  
The case was ordered to come up today.  
We are informed that motion for no confidence was passed but was not given effect to, due to order of the court.  
 
11. We have heard, Sri Umesh Narain Sharma and Sri NC Tripathi counsel for the petitioner; Sri CB Yadav, Additional Advocate General and Sri Saroj Yadav standing counsel for State of UP.

saving score / loading statistics ...