# Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 313
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-24
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 29087 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45284
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-UP Kshettra Panchayat and
Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 - Section 15(2)
and 15(3) - Notice of no confidence -
Limitation - Intention to make motion - There
is a clear mandate by the legislature that no
meeting can be convened for discussing a no
confidence motion beyond a period of 30 days
- The explanation that has been appended to
the relevant provision only saves a situation
where a notice of confidence motion has been
put to challenge and there is some stay order
operating in that respect -Once a notice is
given convening a meeting, the meeting is a
must on the scheduled date. (Para 12)
B. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Suspension of Notice - Effect of Vacation of
Stay Order - If Court finds notice to be legal
and dismisses the writ petition vacating the
stay order, the suspended animation gets over
and natural legal effect would
be the
rescheduling of the meeting as if notice was
already there - Court's order suspending any
notice, otherwise legal, is like an eclipse that
overshadows the time schedule provided under
the Act, for a while and then goes away. (Para
13)
C. Interpretation of Statute - Golden rule
of interpretation - Literal interpretation - A
limitation if prescribed by legislature, it cannot
be extended - The golden rule of interpretation
is to go by literal interpretation to a provision
of law - The explanation added to the Section
not only shows intendment of the legislature in
saving a particular situation so that by an act of
Court a proceeding otherwise legal, does not
get frustrated, the principle being 'actus curiae
neminem gravabit' which means act of Court
shall prejudice no man. (Para 15)
D. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Scope - Court exercising its power under
Article 226, cannot pass a direction which
would not only carry out a new exception to
the general law but in substance would
amount to an exercise, quite legislative in
nature, which is clearly not permissible.
(Para 16)
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of cases cited :-

## Text

2 All. Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
313
Manikpur category 4 reservoir, district
Chitrakoot and the consequential allotment
order date 11.07.2019 in favour of
respondent no. 5 brought on record vide
annexure 1 to the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 are hereby
quashed.

29. Respondents are directed to
initiate proceedings to float tender afresh
for the purpose of allotment of fisheries
rights in respect of reservoir in question
within four weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that this time the
procedure will be strictly followed as per
the manual and the relevant Government
Order
and
all
the
eligible
persons
including petitioner and respondent no. 5
shall be entitled to participate in the tender
process as per their own rights of
preference.

30. Writ petition thus stands allowed
with above observations and directions.
----------
(2020)02ILR A313

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 29087 of 2019

Anil Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tarun Agrawal, Sri Prakhar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rahul Sahai, Sri Mayank
Srivastava

A. Civil Law-UP Kshettra Panchayat and
Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 - Section 15(2)
and 15(3) - Notice of no confidence -
Limitation - Intention to make motion - There
is a clear mandate by the legislature that no
meeting can be convened for discussing a no
confidence motion beyond a period of 30 days
- The explanation that has been appended to
the relevant provision only saves a situation
where a notice of confidence motion has been
put to challenge and there is some stay order
operating in that respect -Once a notice is
given convening a meeting, the meeting is a
must on the scheduled date. (Para 12)
B. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Suspension of Notice - Effect of Vacation of
Stay Order - If Court finds notice to be legal
and dismisses the writ petition vacating the
stay order, the suspended animation gets over
and natural legal effect would
be the
rescheduling of the meeting as if notice was
already there - Court's order suspending any
notice, otherwise legal, is like an eclipse that
overshadows the time schedule provided under
the Act, for a while and then goes away. (Para
13)
C. Interpretation of Statute - Golden rule
of interpretation - Literal interpretation - A
limitation if prescribed by legislature, it cannot
be extended - The golden rule of interpretation
is to go by literal interpretation to a provision
of law - The explanation added to the Section
not only shows intendment of the legislature in
saving a particular situation so that by an act of
Court a proceeding otherwise legal, does not
get frustrated, the principle being 'actus curiae
neminem gravabit' which means act of Court
shall prejudice no man. (Para 15)
D. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Scope - Court exercising its power under
Article 226, cannot pass a direction which
would not only carry out a new exception to
the general law but in substance would
amount to an exercise, quite legislative in
nature, which is clearly not permissible.
(Para 16)
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of cases cited :-
1. Jones vs. Smart, 99 ER 963

2. Union of India vs. Rajiv Kumar (2003) 6 SCC
516

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

1. Heard Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devendra
Kumar Tiwari, learned Addl. Chief Standing
Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri
Rahul Sahai, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.3. Perused the record.

2. By means of this petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution, the
petitioner has questioned the correctness
of the order dated 31.8.2019 passed by the
District Magistrate whereby he has turned
down the notice of no confidence motion
moved by the petitioner and other
members of Zila Panchayat on the ground
that it was only signed by five members,
though, it has been acknowledged in the
order itself that there were 37 affidavits
filed in support of the notice of no
confidence motion.

3. We summoned the original records
for the purposes of due verification as to
the reason assigned in the order impugned
by the District Magistrate. From the
perusal of the original records, we find that
the notice, though on the first page, is
signed by five members but it has also an
appended list of 37 members including
those five members, titled as "Signatures
of the members on a format in support of
the notice of no confidence motion."

4. Having thus perused the original
records, atleast this much is clear that there
was a notice having a due appendix of the
format which contained signatures of 37
members who intended to move a notice
of
no
confidence
motion
against
respondent no.3.

5. An argument has been advanced
by learned counsel for the petitioner also
relying upon a judgment of Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.
Shashi Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others
wherein
in
identical
facts
and
circumstances the notice of motion carried
alongwith affidavits of members who
intended to move the no confidence
motion. The Court held in its ultimate
paragraph nos.38, 39 and 40 thus:

"38. We hold the provision
regarding the form of written notice of
intention to make the motion required to
be submitted to the Collector on behalf of
the members signing the notice under
Section 15(2) is to be directory in nature.
A substantial compliance of the provisions
would implement the requirements of law.
A substantial compliance is done when the
purpose of the notice is achieved. The
purpose of the notice of intent to make the
motion, is to furnish to the Collector the
material on which he has to found his
satisfaction before convening the meeting.
Such material should demonstrate full
compliance of mandatory provisions of
15(2) of the Act. In particular, the notice
should be in writing. It should manifest the
clear intention of the members to make a
motion expressing want of confidence in
the Pramukh. It should be signed by at
least half of the elected members. The
copy of the no confidence motion should
be attached thereto.

39. In fact, if a strict compliance
of the said mandatory parts of Section
2 All. Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
315
15(2) is done, then the substantial
compliance of directory provisions of the
aforesaid of Section 15(2) would be
automatically deemed to have been done.

40. If such facts or material can
be distilled from the notice to make a
motion expressing want of confidence
irrespective of its form, it substantially
complies with the mandate of law. As has
been held, these prerequisites are fulfilled
in the instant case. "

6. It is thus argued that the order
passed by the District Magistrate cannot be
sustained.

7. Per contra, an argument advanced
by learned counsel appearing for the State
respondents as well as the respondent no. 3
is that as per the provisions contained
under Section 15 (3) (i), the District
Magistrate is under an obligation to
convene a meeting of Kshetra Panchayat
for consideration of motion and which
should be scheduled not later than 30 days
from the date on which the notice under
Sub-Section 2 was delivered to him. He
further argues that as per the provision the
only
saving
in
terms
extension
in
prescribed
period
is
under
those
circumstances where there is some stay
order operating in a case against the notice
of no confidence motion under challenge.
Therefore, he submits that since the notice
admittedly was delivered on 16.8.2019, a
period of 30 days has already expired so
the writ petition is rendered infructuous
and no effective relief can be granted.
Moreover, he argues that there was no
interim order or stay order operating in the
present case as defined in the explanation.

8. Countering the above submissions
advanced,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner argues that in such situation
interim order would not be where notice itself
has come to be rejected by the District
Magistrate and rejection order is under
challenge. He argues that the District
Magistrate has not duly applied his mind and
the order is absolutely illegal in the light of the
ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench.
He argues that the order if is bad and is set
aside, this Court exercising extraordinary
power under Article 226 of the Constitution,
can even warrant for further period for
convening the meeting of no confidence
motion by providing extended time as
prescribed for under the Act, 1961.

9. Rival submissions fall for
consideration.

10. Coming to the first argument
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the order passed by the
District Magistrate is not sustainable as the
law laid down is to the effect that even if
the notice of no confidence motion is
accompanied by affidavit of members
forming requisite number i.e. more than
half of total members to move a no
confidence motion.

11. In our considered opinion, as the
law stands today and the statement has
been made at the bar that the judgment in
Smt. Shashi Yadav (supra) still holds the
field as the said judgment has not been
challenged in the Apex Court, the ratio
laid down in the judgment is fully attracted
and the order of District Magistrate cannot
be sustained. It is accordingly held bad
being legally not sustainable. However,
the question is that even if the order is
quashed
today
what
would
be
consequential effect thereof.

12. The argument as advanced by
learned counsel for the respondents if
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tested upon the relevant provision of the
Act, 1961, we find that there is a clear
mandate by the legislature under the
provision that no meeting can be convened
for discussing a no confidence motion
beyond a period of 30 days. The
explanation that has been appended to the
relevant provision only saves a situation
where a notice of confidence motion has
been put to challenge and there is some
stay order operating in that respect.

13. We find justification for such a
saving clause for the simple reason that once a
notice is given convening a meeting, the
meeting is a must on the scheduled date but for
the Court's intervention. So, in case if Court
finds notice to be legal and dismisses the writ
petition vacating the stay order, the suspended
animation gets over and natural legal effect
would be the rescheduling of the meeting as if
notice was already there. So, Court's order
suspending any notice, otherwise legal, is like
an eclipse that overshadows the time schedule
provided under the Act, for a while and then
goes away.

14. In the present case, we find that
the District Magistrate has rejected the
notice on certain grounds on 31.8.2019. A
challenge to the rejection order would
have resulted in a positive action, in case,
if it is quashed and a period prescribed
under substantive provision to convene the
meeting is still there.

15. A limitation if prescribed by
legislature, it cannot be extended. The
golden rule of interpretation is to go by
literal interpretation to a provision of law.
The explanation added to the Section not
only shows intendment of the legislature in
saving a particular situation so that by an
act of Court a proceeding otherwise legal,
does not get frustrated, the principle being
'actus curiae neminem gravabit' which
means act of Court shall prejudice no man.

16. In view of the legislative intent
behind the provision, this Court exercising
its power under Article 226, cannot pass a
direction which would not only carry out a
new exception to the general law but in
substance would amount to an exercise,
quite legislative in nature, which is clearly
not permissible. The law is very clear that
a casus omissus can in no case be
supplied by a Court of Law, for that
would be to make laws (per Buller J. in
Jones vs. Smart, 99 ER 963), except in
some case of absolute necessity. The
settled legal position as a rule of
interpretation is that the Court cannot
read anything into a statutory provision
or rewrite a provision which is plain and
unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the
legislature. The language employed in a
statute or any statutory provision is the
determinative factor of legislative intent
of policy makers. [Union of India vs. Rajiv
Kumar(2003) 6 SCC 516].

17. As here in this case Sub-Section
12 of Section 28 of the Act, 1961, would
not be attracted and it is always open for
the members to bring fresh notice qua no
confidence motion against the respondent
no.3, it is not a case of such an absolute
necessity that if Court did apply the
principle of 'casus omissus', miscarriage of
justice would take place resulting in any
irreparable loss.

18. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner has not been able to cite any
judgment to the contrary.

19. With the aforesaid observations,
the petition stands consigned to records.
----------
2 All. Shahbaz Ali Khan Vs. Union of India & Ors.
317
(2020)02ILR A317

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 29363 of 2019

Shahbaz Ali Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kumar Anish

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Rijwan Ali Akbar, Sri Shashank
Shekhar Singh

A. Constitution of India - Fundamental
Rights - Nature - The text of the Constitution,
is a conceptual philosophy of fundamental
rights, and not an exhaustive guide to
fundamental
rights
-
The
text
of
the
Constitution is fixed, fundamental rights are
always evolving. This is the essence of
constitutional law jurisprudence - Evolution of
constitutional law rights are guided and
controlled by the text of the constitution, long
settled judicial principles of interpretation of
the constitution, and judicial precedents in
point - The march of law is also assisted by
consensus of values, in the comity of civilized
nations. (Para 40 and 41)

B. Constitution of India - Article 21 -
Human dignity - Means and Scope - Human
dignity made a decisive contribution in the
development of the rights of life and liberty, in
jurisprudential systems of free societies across
the world - Consistent and high authority have
thus entrenched human dignity as fundamental
to right to life, which flows from Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. (Para 78, 107)

C. Constitution of India - Article 21 -
Validity
of
Punishment
-
Imposed
on
delinquent student - Punishment has to be
effective to serve its purpose; however, it
cannot be purblind to human dignity, if it is to
retain its constitutionality - Degree of injuries
to self esteem, extent of degradation of human
worth, depth of humiliation caused by the
punishment, are facts to be probed in an
enquiry into the validity of the punishment -
Punishment for deviant conduct, cannot be so
severe as to degrade human life. Every form of
punishment
should
protect
the
essential
sanctity of human life and comport with
fundamental norms of decency evolved by a
civilized society. (Para 118, 120 and 122)

D. Constitution of India - Article 21 -
Rehabilitation and Reformation - Absence of an
environment of reform, self development and
rehabilitation in a university, denies the
opportunity of redeeming one's reputation -
The individual is permanently discarded by the
institution, and loss of human self worth is total
- This system of punishment is destructive of
fundamental elements of human dignity, and
violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India - Held, The impugned action taken by
the university, against the petitioner is violative
of the fundamental right of human dignity of
the petitioner, guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, as it fails to consider
his susceptibility to reform. (Para 123 and 136)

E. Civil Law- Its role and contribution -
Preservation of Constitutional values -
University is a paternal institution - It is a
microcosm of the Society - There are no other
institutions of equal standing, to engage with
the youth, deal with the discontent or
aberration, and channelize youthful energies -
The role of the University does not end in
punishing perpetrators of violence. It begins
with the identification of the causes of violence,
communal hatred, and other forms of deviant
conduct - Thereafter the responsibility to
achieve behavioral change commences - The
universities have the responsibility, to preserve
this heritage, and the obligation to nurture
these constitutional values. (Para 149, 150, 153
and 161)

F. Nudge - Methodology - Behavioral
Change - Importance of Yoga, Meditation and
Vipassana - The methodology of 'nudges', in