# Siya Devi and another v. State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 275
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/siya-devi-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-others-39615
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

1All] Siya Devi and another V. State of U.P. & others
275
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( 6. 6(1 &-
7+( +21
%/( 6. 6(1 &-
7+( +21
%/( 65 $/$0 -
7+( +21
%/( 65 $/$0 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6L\D 'HYL DQG DQRWKHU
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
6WDWH
RI
83
WKURXJK
WKH 6HFUHWDU\
'HSDUWPHQW RI &R2SHUDWLYH *RYW RI
83 /XFNQRZ DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL 5DP $XWDU 9HUPD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL +0 6ULYDVWDYD
6KUL 96 5DMSXW

83 &R2SHUDWLYH 6RFLHWLHV $FW 5
%DU XQGHU (IIHFW
+HOG 3DUD
,Q WKH LQVWDQW FDVH D PHHWLQJ DGPLWWHGO\
WRRN SODFH RQ WK 6HSWHPEHU 7KH
'LVWULFW 0DJLVWUDWH KDV DJDLQ FDOOHG D
PHHWLQJ
RQ

'HFHPEHU

,W
DSSHDUV WKDW DW WKH VDLG PHHWLQJ YRWH RI
FRQILGHQFH FRXOG QRW EH SDVVHG DJDLQVW
WKH SHWLWLRQHU $GPLWWHGO\ VL[ PRQWKV
SHULRG KDV QRW H[SLUHG ,Q WKDW YLHZ RI
WKH PDWWHU FDOOLQJ RI WKH VDLG PHHWLQJ E\
WKH
'LVWULFW
0DJLVWUDWH
LV
ZLWKRXW
MXULVGLFWLRQ DQG FRQWUDU\ WR 5XOH RI
WKH VDLG $FW
By the Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. In the instant writ petition, the
petitioner is aggrieved by further calling
of the meeting of the members of Board
of Directors by the District Magistrate.
According to the petitioner further calling
of the meeting within three months is
contrary to Rule 464 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) which provides as
follows :

"464. If the motion for no confidence
fails for want of quorum or lack of
requisite majority at the meeting, no
subsequent meeting for considering
the motion of no-confidence shall be
held within six months of the date of
the previous meeting."

3. It appears on proper interpretation
of Rule 464 of the Act that if the motion
for no confidence fails either for want of
quorum or lack of requisite majority,
there is no scope for calling any
subsequent
meeting
for
considering
motion of no confidence again within six
months from the date of the previous
meeting. In view of the specific bar
provided in the aforesaid Rule 464 of the
Act, District Magistrate has no power to
call another meeting within a period of six
months if the meeting fails either for want
of quorum or lack of requisite. In the
instant case a meeting admittedly took
place
on
25thSeptember,
2000. The
District Magistrate has again called a
meeting on 7thDecember, 2000. It appears
that at the said meeting vote of confidence
could not be passed against the petitioner.
Admittedly, six months period has not
expired. In that view of the matter calling
of the said meeting by the District
Magistrate is without jurisdiction and
contrary to Rule 464 of the said Act.

4. Accordingly, we allow the writ
petition and set aside the order-dated
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
276
7/13.11.2000 passed by the District
Magistrate.

No order as to costs.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' 7+( $//$+$%$'
'$7(' 7+( $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( 6+<$0$/ .80$5 6(1 &-
7+( +21
%/( 6+<$0$/ .80$5 6(1 &-
7+( +21
%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -
7+( +21
%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

,VPDLO
.KDQ
3UHVLGHQW
$GK\DNVK
1DJDU
3DQFKD\DW
5DUDK
'LVWULFW
0DWKXUD
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQRWKHU «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL *. 6LQJK
6KUL $3 6DKL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 3UHP &KDQGUD
%' 0DGK\DQ
$ 1DUDLQ
6&

6HFWLRQ $ RI WKH 83 0XQLFLSDOLWLHV
$FW 7KH 6WDWH *RYHUQPHQW KDV WR
FRPSO\
ZLWK
WKUHH
FRQGLWLRQV
EHIRUH
SDVVLQJ DQ RUGHU XQGHU 6HFWLRQ RI WKH
$FW YL] FRQVLGHU WKH H[SODQDWLRQ
RIIHUHG E\ WKH 3UHVLGHQW &RQGXFW
HQTXLU\ DQG UHFRUG UHDVRQV LQ ZULWLQJ
ZLWK UHJDUG WR UHPRYDO RI WKH 3UHVLGHQW
IURP KLV 2IILFH +HOG LQ SDUD
,I WKH 6WDWH *RYHUQPHQW UHOLHG XSRQ DQ\
UHSRUW VXEPLWWHG E\ WKH 'HSXW\ 'LVWULFW
0DJLVWUDWH LW VKRXOG KDYH VXSSOLHG LWV
FRS\ WR WKH SHUVRQ FRQFHUQHG DQG RQ LWV
IDLOXUH WR GR VR WKH RUGHU ZDV OLDEOH WR
EH VHW DVLGH
5HVSRQGHQW
QR

LQ
LWV
RUGHU
KDV
UHIHUUHG WR WKH FKDUJHV OHYHOOHG DJDLQVW
WKH SHWLWLRQHU DV ZHOO DV WKH H[SODQDWLRQ
RIIHUHG E\ KLP IRU FRPLQJ WR LWV RZQ
FRQFOXVLRQ EXW LW GLG QRW UHFRUG DQ\
UHDVRQV IRU DUULYLQJ DW VXFK FRQFOXVLRQ
6HFWLRQ

$
LWVHOI SURYLGHV WKDW
UHDVRQ LV WR EH UHFRUGHG LQ ZULWLQJ IRU
FRPLQJ WR D FRQFOXVLRQ 7KH UHVSRQGHQW
VKRXOG
KDYH
FRQVLGHUHG
HDFK
RI
WKH
FKDUJHV
DQG
WKH
PDWHULDO
HYLGHQFH
SURGXFHG RQ VXFK FKDUJHV WR FRPH WR WKH
FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW WKRVH FKDUJHV KDYH EHHQ
SURYHG 7KH UHVSRQGHQW KDG WR DSSUDLVH
WKH HYLGHQFH DQG UHFRUG LWV UHDVRQV IRU
WDNLQJ WKH GHFLVLRQ 7KH RUGHU LQ WKH
DEVHQFH RI UHFRUGLQJ RI UHDVRQV LV FOHDUO\
LQ FRQWUDYHQWLRQ RI WKH SURYLVLRQV RI
6HFWLRQ $ RI WKH $FW

By the Court

1. This writ petition is directed
against the order dated 5th August, 2000
passed
by
the
State
Government
(respondent no. 1) whereby the petitioner
has been removed from the office of the
President,
Nagar
Panchayat
Farah,
District Mathura in exercise of powers
under Section 48 (2-A) of the U.P.
Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act).

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the
petitioner was elected as the President
(Adhyaksh) of Nagar Panchayat Farah in
District Mathura. On a complaint received
against
the
petitioner
the
State
Government issued a show cause notice to
him under Section 48 (4-A) of the Act
asking him to submit his explanation
regarding the charges levelled against
him. In the said notice seven charges were
shown to have been committed by the
petitioner. The first charge was that the
police arrested the petitioner on 16th May,
1998 in crime case no. 96/98 under
Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 201 and 212