# Smt. Bandana v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1486
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-06
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 11196 of 2025
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-bandana-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53506
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Kshettra Panchayat and Zila
Panchayat Act,1961-Section 15(2) & (3)-
The petitioner an elected member of the
Kshettra Panchayat submitted a nonconfidence
motion
against
the
Block
Pramukh-The notice was supported by 70
out
of
100
elected
members
and
submitted to the Collector u/s 15(2) of the
Act,1961-Instead of convening a meeting,
the Collector rejected the motion on
20.03.2025
citing
affidavits
from
69
members denying their support for the
motion-Held,
once
a
non-confidence
motion u/s 15(2) of the Act is validly
submitted with signatures of at least half
of the elected members, the Collector is
statutorily obligated to convene a meeting
within 30 days and cannot reject the
motion
based
on
belated
rebuttal
affidavits or enter into disputed questions
of fact such as forgery or coercion-The
Court
quashed
the
Collector's
order
rejecting the motion and directed a
summary verification of signatures from
Panchayat records, reiterating that the
Collector's role is limited to a prima facie
satisfaction, not detailed inquiry.(Para 1
to 31)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provision of the MH Act, 2017, including
Section 82 of the MH Act, 2017.

 (vii) The aforesaid directions
have been passed on the strength of the
petitioner's submission and averments
made before this Court as well as the report
of the Tehsildar- Ramnagar that opposite
party no.4 is under the care and living
along with the petitioner and there is valid
and existing 'no objection' Affidavit of
other relatives of opposite party no.4 in
favour of the petitioner. The parties shall be
bound by the said submission and in case,
the same are found otherwise, appropriate
proceedings including Contempt of Court
may be initiated against them.

(21) The petition is, accordingly,
allowed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1486
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ C No. 11196 of 2025

Smt. Bandana ....Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Siddharth Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C, J.P.N. Singh

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Kshettra Panchayat and Zila
Panchayat Act,1961-Section 15(2) & (3)-
The petitioner an elected member of the
Kshettra Panchayat submitted a nonconfidence
motion
against
the
Block
Pramukh-The notice was supported by 70
out
of
100
elected
members
and
submitted to the Collector u/s 15(2) of the
Act,1961-Instead of convening a meeting,
the Collector rejected the motion on
20.03.2025
citing
affidavits
from
69
members denying their support for the
motion-Held,
once
a
non-confidence
motion u/s 15(2) of the Act is validly
submitted with signatures of at least half
of the elected members, the Collector is
statutorily obligated to convene a meeting
within 30 days and cannot reject the
motion
based
on
belated
rebuttal
affidavits or enter into disputed questions
of fact such as forgery or coercion-The
Court
quashed
the
Collector's
order
rejecting the motion and directed a
summary verification of signatures from
Panchayat records, reiterating that the
Collector's role is limited to a prima facie
satisfaction, not detailed inquiry.(Para 1
to 31)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mathura Prasad Tewari Vs Asst. Ditt.
Panchayat Officer, Faizabad(1996) ALJ 612

2. Smt. Phulbasa Vs D.M. collector & ors., Writ C
No. 36671 of 2024

3. Vikas Trivedi Vs St. of U.P. (2013) 2 UPLBC
1193 para 66

4. Vikash Kr. & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2025)
2 ADJ 1

5. Utma Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2014) 4 ADJ 3

6. Smt. Sheela Devi & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2015) 2 ADJ 325

7. Kavita Vs St. of U.P. (2018) 10 SCC 569

8. Kiran Pal Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2018) 7
SCC 521

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)
5 All. Smt. Bandana Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1487

1. The petitioner, who is an elected
member of Kshettra Panchayat constituted
under the Kshettra Panchayat and Zila
Panchayat Act, 19611 delivered in person a
written notice of intention to make a
motion of no confidence in the Pramukh of
Kshettra Panchayat in proper form which
was signed by more than half of the total
number of elected members of Kshettra
Panchayat i.e. 70 members out of 100
members, together with a copy of the
proposed
motion
to
the
Collector,
Azamgarh, who had jurisdiction over the
Kshettra Panchayat. This notice of no
confidence was moved on 7.3.2025 in
accordance with Section 15(2) of the Act,
1961.

2. The respondent no. 2 i.e.
Collector/District Magistrate, Azamgarh, it
is alleged, did not take any action on the
notice dated 7.3.2025. Thereafter, within a
period of five days on 12.3.2025, 69
members of Kshettra Panchayat allegedly
filed notarized affidavit in support of Block
Pramukh, enclosed with a letter of the
Block Pramukh of the same date, stating
that they had not participated in any
meeting
to
propose
motion
of
no
confidence against the respondent no.3 and
had not signed affidavit regarding the same.
Thereafter, by means of the impugned
order dated 20.3.2025, the notice dated
7.3.2025 expressing no confidence was
found to be not maintainable and was
rejected.

3. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that once the
written notice of intention as envisaged in
Section 15(2) of the Act, 1961 is moved
before the Collector, the Collector has no
option, but to proceed to convene a meeting
of Kshettra Panchayat for consideration of
motion at the office of Kshettra Panchayat
on a date appointed by him which shall not
be later than 30 days from the date on
which the notice under sub-section (2) of
Section 15 of the Act is delivered to him
and is mandated to give to the elected
members of Kshettra Panchayat a notice of
not less than 15 days of such meeting. The
Collector cannot embark on a fact finding
exercise and collect evidence in that regard.
No trial can be conducted by the Collector
as he does not have the trapping of the
court. Reference has been made to a Full
Bench decision of this Court in Mathura
Prasad Tewari Vs. Assistant District
Panchayat Officer, Faizabad2.

4. It is stated that the impugned
order reflects that 69 affidavits were
submitted by the alleged members of
Kshettra Panchyat before the Collector on
12.3.2025 stating that they were completely
satisfied with the manner of working and
the work of Pramukh, who is working for
the benefits of Kshettra Panchayat and has
done a lot of development works; that 34
members of Kshettra Panchayat had
allegedly appeared before the Collector on
20.3.2025, on which date the impugned
order was passed; that they submitted
affidavits allegedly signed by them stating
that they were fully satisfied with the
manner of working and the work of the
Block Pramukh and expressed confidence
in him, and that they had never signed any
affidavits expressing want of confidence in
Block Pramukh and if any such affidavits
had been filed, the same should be taken as
void; that the impugned order reflects that
since 34 of the signatories to the written
notice of intention to move a motion of no
confidence had submitted their affidavits
on 20.3.2025, the remaining signatories to
the written notice of intention are reduced
to 36 which is less than half of the total
strength to 100 elected members of the
1488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kshettra Panchayat; that the act of the
Collector in rejecting the aforesaid motion
is contrary to the statute and against the
judgments passed by this Court.

5. On query being made by the
court,
Shri
Sandeep
Singh,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel, states
on the basis of oral instruction received
from the District Panchayat Raj Officer3,
Azamgarh telephonically, that after receipt
of the communication from the respondent
No.3 dated 12.03.2025 no report was
submitted either by the Chief Development
Officer4 or by the DPRO. It is also been
submitted by him that after receipt of the
notice of No Confidence dated 07.03.2025,
though the same were marked by the
Collector to the CDO/DPRO, neither of
them had submitted any report. It is further
been stated by the learned Standing
Counsel that it is only on 20.03.2025 that
the CDO and the DPRO assembled in the
office of the District Magistrate, Azamgarh,
the facts were collated and the impugned
order was passed. He further states that as
per the oral instruction received from the
DPRO the file was with the CDO till
18.03.2025 and no report/action was taken
or done.

6. On query being made by the
court as to how the respondent no.3 had
received
information
about
the
noconfidence motion being submitted before
the Collector, Shri K.R. Singh learned
counsel, states that no communication
whatsoever was received by the respondent
No.3 from the office of the Collector or the
CDO or the DPRO, but they had received
prior intimation on 04 of March 2025 from
the local media i.e. a Youtube channel by
the name of Janta News channel; that on
07.03.2025, another video was uploaded on
Youtube in which the petitioner's husband
is shown as showing the notice of no
confidence. Thus it is stated that the
respondent no. 3 received information
about the notice of no confidence motion
from the aforesaid YouTube Channel.

7. Shri K.R. Singh, Advocate, has
referred to page 33 and 104 of the writ
petition to contend that in the affidavits
allegedly filed by the signatories to the
written notice have stated that a meeting
was convened by them on 10.11.2024
whereas in the proposal expressing want of
confidence enclosed with the written notice
shows the date of 25.2.2025. It is stated that
there was no resolution on 10.11.2024
passed by the signatories to the no
confidence motion. Hence, the notice of
intention to make the motion of no
confidence is defective and is liable to be
rejected. It is further stated that the
affidavit on page 33 of the writ petition is
of a later date than the proposal which was
allegedly passed in the resolution dated
25.2.2025 but the affidavit refers to a
meeting held on 10.4.2024 and therefore,
there is a clear contradiction rendering the
notice of intention to make the motion of
no confidence, defective.

8. In rejoinder, learned counsel for
the petitioner has referred to page 20 of the
writ petition, which is part of the impugned
order passed by the respondent no. 2, to
contend that it reflects that on 20.3.2025,
34 members of the Kshettra Panchayat had
appeared in person before the Collector and
filed affidavits stating that they were
completely satisfied with the work of the
Pramukh and that they expressed their
confidence in him. The contention is that
these 34 affidavits are a repetition of the
contents of the affidavits included in the 69
affidavits filed earlier by the Block
Pramukh before the Collector.
5 All. Smt. Bandana Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1489
9. When the matter was listed on
16.4.2025, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the State-respondents was
directed to produce the original record
pertaining to the issue in the writ petition
and to obtain detailed instructions in the
matter and file counter affidavit.

10. On 28.4.2025, for perusal of
the Court, the instructions sent by the
Collector by means of a letter dated
26.4.2025 were produced, but no counter
affidavit has been filed. The original
records pertaining to the no confidence
motion sought to be moved by the
petitioner were produced. It is pertinent to
note that despite direction of this Court for
filing a counter affidavit, it is reflected in
the covering letter of 26.4.2025 sent
alongwith
the
instructions,
that
the
Additional DPRO, Azamgarh was directed
to file the aforesaid instructions.

11. The written instructions dated
26.4.2025 as signed by the Collector /
District Magistrate and sent to the Standing
Counsel, read as under:-

 "मा० उच्च न्द्यायालय में योतर्जि तसतवल प्रकीणथ ररट
यातचका सां0-11196/2025 श्रीमिी बन्द्दना बनाम उ० प्र०
रायय व 03 अन्द्य में पाररि आदेश तदनाांक 16.04.2025 के
अनुपालन में अनुदेश तनम्नवि् है:-

 1. यह तक यातचनी द्वारा तदनाांक 07.03.2025
को क्षेत्र पांचायि हरैया के सम्पूणथ सदथय सांख्या 100 के सापेक्ष 70
सदथयों का शपि पत्र सांलग्न करिे हुए तवपक्षी सांख्या 03 के तवरूद्ध
अतवश्वास नोतटस तवपक्षी सांख्या 02 के समक्ष प्रथिुि तकया गया।
(सांलग्नक 01)

 2. यह तक उक्त पर तवपक्षी सांख्या 02 द्वारा
ितदद्दनाांक को मुख्य तवकास अतिकारी / तर्जला पांचायि रार्ज
अतिकारी को तनयमानुसार आवश्कयक कायथवाही करने के तनदेश तदये
गये।
 3. यह तक नोतटस हेिु तनयि समय अवति के पूवथ ही
तवपक्षी सांख्या 03 द्वारा तदनाांक 12.03.2025 को तवपक्षी सांख्या
02 के समक्ष उपतथिि होकर 69 क्षेत्र पांचायि सदथयों द्वारा तवपक्षी
सांख्या 03 के पक्ष में शपि पत्र प्रथिुि कर उनके कायथशैली व कायथ
से सांिुष्ट होने ििा अब िक तकये गये समथि कायथ समथि
ग्रामों/वाडो में समान रूप से क्षेत्र पांचायि के तहि में तवकास कायथ
कराये र्जाने के कारण अपना तवश्वास व्यक्त तकया ििा उनके द्वारा
तवपक्षी सांख्या 03 के तवरूद्ध प्रथिुि अतवश्वास प्रािथना पत्र पर कोई
हथिाक्षर नहीं तकये र्जाने ििा अतवश्वास प्रथिाव की मीतटांग में
प्रतिभाग न तकये र्जाने का अतभकिन तकया गया।(सांलग्नक 02)

 4. यह तक तदनाांक 20.03.2025 को क्षेत्र
पांचायि हरैया के 34 क्षेत्र पांचायि सदथय, र्जो अतवश्वास सूची में
सतम्मतलि िे, के द्वारा थवयां तवपक्षी सांख्या 02 के समक्ष उपतथिि
होकर इस आशय का शपि पत्र प्रथिुि तकया गया तक वे तवपक्षी
सांख्या 03 के कायथशैली व कायथ से पूणथ रूप से सांिुष्ट हैं। तवपक्षी
सांख्या 03 द्वारा अब िक क्षेत्र पांचायि के तहि में समथि कायथ तकये
गये हैं और क्षेत्र पांचायि के समथि ग्रामों/वाडो में समान रूप से
तवकास कायथ भी कराये गये हैं। शपिकिाथओां द्वारा तवपक्षी सांख्या
03 के पक्ष में अपना तवश्वास प्रकट तकया गया। शपिकिाथओां द्वारा
शपि पत्र के पैरा 02 में यह उजलेख तकया गया है तक शपिकिाथ
द्वारा तवपक्षी सांख्या 03 के तवरूद्ध अतवश्वास प्रथिाव के सम्बन्द्ि में
यतद कोई नोटरी बयान हजिी प्रथिुि की गयी हो िो उसे शून्द्य समझा
र्जाय। (सांलग्नक 03)

 5. यह तक तदनाांक 20.03.2025 को तवपक्षी
सांख्या 02 के समक्ष उपतथिि होकर क्षेत्र पांचायि सदथयों द्वारा उक्त
के सम्बन्द्ि में की गयी पृच्िा के सम्बन्द्ि में थवयां यह अवगि कराया
िा तक उनके उपर तकसी भी व्यतक्त का कोई दबाव नहीं है, वे
तवपक्षी सांख्या 03 में उनके द्वारा कराये गये तनष्पक्ष तवकास कायों
के दृतष्टगि अपना तवश्वास प्रकट करिे हैं।

 6. यह तक तवपक्षी सांख्या 02 द्वारा उपतथिि सदथयों
की पहचान सुतनतश्चि करिे हुए पत्रावली पर उपलब्ि प्रपत्रों, साक्ष्यों
एवां उसके समक्ष व्यतक्तगि रूप से उपतथिि होकर शपि पत्र प्रथिुि
करने वाले सदथयों का परीक्षण करिे हुए अतवश्वास प्रथिाव क्षेत्र
पांचायि ििा तर्जला पांचायि अतितनयम 1961 (यिा सांशोतिि)
की िारा 15 की उप िारा 02 में तनतदथष्ट अहथिाओां पर पूणथ न पािे
हुए यातचनी द्वारा प्रथिुि अतवश्वास प्रथिाव तवषयक प्रािथना पत्र
तदनाांक 07.03.2025. को पोषणीय न पािे हुए तवतियों, तनयमों
1490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
एवां शासनादेशों के अनुिम में थपष्ट, मुखर व सकारण यातचकािीन
आदेश तदनाांक 20.03.2025 पाररि तकया गया है र्जो उतचि एवां
तवतिसम्मि है ििा तनरथि तकये र्जाने योग्य नहीं है। (सांलग्नक 04)

 7. यह तक अतवश्वास प्रथिाव अथवीकृि हो र्जाने के
पश्चाि यातचनी द्वारा प्रथिुि शपि पत्रों के आिार पर अग्रेिर
कायथवाही तकये र्जाने की माांग तनयमानुसार पोषणीय नहीं है।

 8. यह तक यातचनी द्वारा अतवश्वास प्रथिाव हेिु
अपेतक्षि सांख्या पूणथ न कर पाने की हिाशा में अनुतचि लाभ प्राप्त
करने की नीयि से गलि िथ्यों के आिार पर प्रश्नगि यातचका
योतर्जि की गयी है।

 9. यह तक यातचनी के पास यह अवसर है तक यतद
उसके पास अतवश्वास प्रथिाव हेिु अपेतक्षि सदथय सांख्या उपलब्ि है
िो पुनः अतवश्वास प्रथिाव ला सकिी है। वैकतजपक अनुिोष उपलब्ि
होने के कारण यातचका पोषणीय नहीं है।

 10. यह तक यातचनी के थवच्ि हािों से माननीय
न्द्यायालय के समक्ष न आने के कारण वह कोई अनुिोष प्राप्त करने
की अतिकाररणी नहीं है।

 11. यह तक उपरोक्त कारणों से बलहीन होने के
कारण यातचका सव्यय तनरथि होने योग्य अनुदेश सेवा में सादर

प्रेतषि।
तर्जलातिकारी
आर्जमगढ"

12. A perusal of the original
record, in which the pages are numbered in
reverse order, reflects that the written
notice
of
intention
for
moving
no
confidence motion in Pramukh was made
in Form I and signed on 7.3.2025 by the
petitioner which was received by the
Collector/District Magistrate on 7.3.2025
alongwith the proposed motion of noconfidence and on that very day, he
endorsed to the CDO/DPRO. The CDO,
Azamgarh endorsed it to the DPRO for
taking necessary action as per rules and
without delay. This notice bears 70
signatures/thumb
impressions.
The
proposed motion expressing want of
confidence in the Pramukh bears date of
25.2.2025. There are also 70 affidavits
signed by persons, who claim to be
members of the Kshettra Panchayat,
Haraiya, District Azamgarh, and who state
that they had assembled at a meeting on
10.11.2024 for purpose of expressing no
confidence in the Pramukh and they had
signed on the proposal as well as on the
written notice of intention.

13. In the original record, there is
a letter dated 12.3.2025, which is also
enclosed with the instructions, written by
Sandeep
Patel,
Pramukh,
Kshettra
Panchayat, Haraiya, District Azamgarh
addressed to the Collector, Azamgarh on
the subject of written notice of no
confidence against Block Pramukh. The
letter reads as under:-

 "पत्राांकः-

 तदनाांकः- 12.03.25

 सेवा में,
 कलेक्टर,
 आर्जमगढ।

 तवषयः-प्रमुख क्षेत्र पांचायि-हरैया, र्जनपद-आर्जमगढ
के तवरुद्ध प्रेतषि अतवश्वास प्रािथना पत्र के सम्बांि में।

 महोदय,

 अिोहथिाक्षरी को तवश्वसि सूत्रों से ज्ञाि हुआ है तक
प्रमुख, क्षेत्र पांचायि-हरैया, र्जनपद-आर्जमगढ के तवरूद्ध कतिपय
क्षेत्र पांचायि सदथयों द्वारा कुि क्षेत्र पांचायि सदथयों का िर्जी
हथिाक्षर बनाकर महोदय को अतवश्वास प्रथिाव प्रािथना पत्र प्रेतषि
तकया गया है, र्जो क्षेत्र पांचायि ििा तर्जला पांचायि अतितनयम
1961 की िारा 15 के अांिगथि तवति सम्मि नही है।

 उक्त क्षेत्र पांचायि के तनवाथतचि 100 क्षेत्र पांचायि
सदथयों में से 69 क्षेत्र पांचायि सदथयों द्वारा नोटरी शपि पत्र पर इस
5 All. Smt. Bandana Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1491
आशय का बयान तदया गया है तक उनके द्वारा प्रमुख, क्षेत्र पांचायि-
हरैया, तवकास खण्ड्ड- आर्जमगढ के तवरूद्ध अतवश्वास प्रािथना पत्र पर
कोई हथिाक्षर नहीं तकया गया है।

अिः आपसे अनुरोि है तक उक्त अतवश्वास प्रािथना पत्र
पर क्षेत्र पांचायि सदथयों के तकये गये िर्जी हथिाक्षर की अपने थिर
यिोतचि कायथवाही करने की कृपा करें।

 सलग्नकः 69 क्षेत्र पांचायि सदथयों की नोटरी शपि-
पत्र ।

 (सांदीप पटेल)
 प्रुमुख,
 क्षेत्र, पांचायि- हरैया,
 र्जनपद- आर्जमगढ,
 उ०प्र०"

14. Alongwith the aforesaid letter
of 12.3.2025, the notarised affidavits of 69
members
of
Kshettra
Panchayat
are
enclosed. This letter was received by the
District Magistrate on 12.3.2025 who
endorsed it to the CDO/DPRO on the same
day. On that very day, the CDO, Azamgarh
directed, on that letter, the DPRO to take
necessary action in accordance with rules
without delay. In the enclosed notarised
affidavits, it has been stated that they had
not participated in the meeting for no
confidence proposal against the Pramukh
and neither had they signed on the no
confidence proposal. They had also not
given any affidavit in support of the no
confidence motion.

15. Also in the original record are
several photographs bearing page nos.
296 to 328, that appear to be taken,
perhaps on 20.03.2025, in the office of
the
Collector
/
District
Magistrate
allegedly showing the presence of the
signatories
to
the
affidavits
dated
18.3.2025, handing over the same to the
Collector. There is bunch of affidavits
from page 228 to 295 corresponding to 34
affidavits that are notarised enclosing
therewith photocopies of aadhar cards. In
the affidavits, it is written that in case the
deponent, who is a member of the
Kshettra
Panchayat,
has
given
any
affidavit
for
no
confidence
against
Pramukh, that should be taken to be void.
It is further stated that the deponent
expresses
confidence
in
the
Block
Pramukh and he is satisfied with the work
done by the Block Pramukh who has
done a lot of development works. On
page 295 of the original record, on an
affidavit itself, the District Magistrate on
20.3.2025
has
endorsed
it
to
the
CDO/DPRO.

 In the original record there is no
report or communication whatsoever of
either the CDO or the DPRO addressed to
the Collector / District Magistrate or to
any other authority in compliance of the
repeated orders of the Collector dated
7.3.2025, 12.3.2025 and 20.3.2025.

16. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3)
of Section 15 of the Act, 1961 read as
follows:

 "15. Motion of non-confidence
in Pramukh-

 (1) A motion expressing want of
confidence in the Pramukh or any of a
Kshettra Panchayat may be made and
proceeded with in accordance with the
procedure laid down in the following subsections.

 (2) A written notice of intention
to make the motion in such form as may be
prescribed, signed by at least half of the
total number of elected members of the
Kshettra Panchayat for the time being
1492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
together with a copy of the proposed
motion, shall be delivered in person, by any
one of the members signing the notice, to
the Collector having jurisdiction over the
Kshettra Panchayat.

 (3) The Collector shall thereupon-

 (i) convene a meeting of the
Kshettra Panchayat for the consideration of
the motion at the office of the Kshettra
Panchayat on a date appointed by him,
which shall not be later than thirty days
from the date on which the notice under
sub-section (2) was delivered to him; and

 (ii) give to the elected member of
the Kshettra Panchayat notice of not less
than fifteen days of such meeting in such
manner as may be prescribed.

 Explanation- In computing the
period of thirty days specified in this subsection, the period during which a stay
order, if any, issued by a Competent Court
on a petition filed against the motion made
under this section is in force plus such
further time as may be required in the issue
of fresh notices of the meeting to the
members shall be excluded."

17. Thus the ingredients of subsection (2) of Section 15, as they appear
from a bare reading of the provision, are:

 (i) a written notice of intention to
make a motion expressing want of
confidence in the Pramukh of a Kshettra
Panchayat would be in such form as may
be prescribed,

 (ii) this written notice shall be
signed by at least half of the total number
of elected members of the Kshettra
Panchayat for the time being,
 (iii) the aforesaid written notice
shall be accompanied by a copy of the
proposed motion expressing want of
confidence in the Pramukh,

 (iv) the aforesaid written notice
as well as a copy of the proposed motion
shall be delivered in person by any one of
the members signing the written notice to
the Collector having jurisdiction over the
Kshettra Panchayat.

18. (i) As regards the form in
which a written notice of intention to make
a motion expressing want of confidence in
the Pramukh of a Kshettra Panchayat is
concerned, in the case of Smt. Phulbasa
Vs. District Magistrate Collector and 6
others5, it has been held by this Court after
considering several judgments that it would
be sufficient notice of intention to make the
motion, if the intention to make a motion
for no confidence is reflected from perusal
of the notice and as such it is not
mandatory for the written notice of
intention to make the motion to be in the
prescribed format.

 (ii) It is the written notice of
intention to make the motion of no
confidence that is to be signed by at least
half of the total number of the elected
members of the Kshettra Panchayat.
Though, it is not the requirement nor is it
mandatory that affidavits of the signatories
to the written notice of intention are to be
submitted by the signatories to the written
notice, affidavits may be required by the
Collector to facilitate the consideration of
the written notice of intention to make the
no confidence motion as far as its validity
is concerned.

 (iii) The copy of the proposed no
confidence motion is to accompany this
5 All. Smt. Bandana Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1493
written notice. That copy of the proposed
no confidence motion does not require the
signatures of any of the signatories of the
written notice. In the Full Bench decision
of this Court in the case of Vikas Trivedi
Vs. State of U.P.6, it has been observed
that while notice of intention to make the
motion is required to be signed by at least
half of the total number of elected
members, there is no such requirement in
respect of copy of the proposed motion. As
a
corollary
or
even
otherwise,
the
proceedings or date of any meeting of the
signatories to the written notice of noconfidence for formulating and resolving
the proposed motion of no-confidence is of
no consequence for the Collector to
consider the validity of the written notice of
intention.

19. This Court has been noticing
that in petitions arising out of steps initiated
under Section 15 of the Act, 1961, where
affidavits in support of the written notice
are being filed before the Collector, rebuttal
affidavits are filed allegedly by some
signatories of the written notice of intention
and the Collector proceeds to consider the
rebuttal affidavits to pass an order rejecting
the written notice of intention to make the
motion of no confidence.

20. In the case of Vikash Kumar
and another Vs. State Of Up and
others7, it was directed, while relying upon
another Division Bench judgment of this
Court in Utma Devi vs. State of U.P. &
Others8, that where there are affidavits on
record in support of the motion and if there
are affidavits to the contrary submitted, it is
the duty of the Collector to satisfy himself
after looking into the record of the Kshettra
Panchayat. If the District Magistrate is,
prima facie, satisfied as to the signatures of
the members of the Kshettra Panchayat in
the written notice after looking into the
records of the Kshettra Panchayat, he
would proceed to convene a meeting of
Kshettra Panchayat for consideration of 'no
confidence motion' at the office of Kshettra
Panchayat. Such an exercise of looking into
the records of the Kshettra Panchayat,
however, would not enable the Collector to
resolve or enter into finding of facts of
seriously disputed question such as forgery,
fraud, coercion and/or duress.

21. The Collector is not required to
rely upon the contents of any affidavit filed
in rebuttal alleging fraud, coercion by
expressing denial of signatures and/or the
contents of any affidavit in support of the
written notice to come to any conclusion
regarding the validity of the written notice.
Such an exercise is impermissible. The
aforesaid judgment of the Utma Devi has
been approved in a Full Bench decision of
this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi
and other Vs. State of UP and others9.
The Full Bench in Smt. Sheela Devi has
observed that it would not be open to the
Collector to resolve or enter into the
finding of facts of seriously disputed
questions such as forgery, fraud and
coercion. However, it was left to the
discretion of the Collector in each case of
determining on the basis of summary
proceedings
whether
the
essential
requirements of a valid notice of intention
to move a motion of no confidence have
been fulfilled.

22. The aforesaid judgment of Smt.
Sheela Devi (supra) has been followed by
the Supreme Court in the case of Kavita
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh10. Moreover,
in another judgment of the Supreme Court
in Kiran Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others11, it has observed as
follows:
1494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 "19.
To
appreciate
the
controversy, we have to understand the
scheme engrafted under Section 15 of the
Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 provides
that a written notice of intention to make
the motion in such form as may be
prescribed, signed by at least half of the
total number of elected members of the
Kshettra Panchayat for the time being
together with a copy of the proposed
motion, shall be delivered in person, by any
one of the members signing the notice, to
the Collector having jurisdiction over the
Kshettra
Panchayat.
Sub-section
(3)
requires the Collector to convene a
meeting. At this stage, the jurisdiction that
the Collector has is only to scan the notice
to find out whether it fulfils the essential
requirements of a valid notice. The exercise
of the said discretion, as we perceive, has
to be summary in nature. There cannot be a
detailed inquiry with regard to the validity
of the notice. We are obliged to think so as
sub-section (3) mandates that a meeting has
to be convened not later than 30 days from
the date of delivery of the notice and
further there should be at least 15 days'
notice to be given to all the elected
members of the Kshettra Panchayat. The
Collector, therefore, should not assume
power to enter into an arena or record a
finding on seriously disputed questions of
facts relating to fraud, undue influence or
coercion. His only duty is to determine
whether there has been a valid notice as
contemplated under sub-section (2) of
Section 15. His delving deep to conduct a
regular
inquiry
would
frustrate
the
provision. He must function within his own
limits and leave the rest to be determined in
the meeting."

23. It is pertinent to mention here
that in the judgement of Smt. Sheela Devi,
this Court has followed the previous
judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in
Mathura Prasad Tewari (supra), and held
as under:-

 "15.In
our
view,
both
the
decisions of the majority as well as the
minority essentially follow the same line
and the area of dissent is rather narrow.
Both the judgments of the majority as well
as the minority postulate that the Collector
ought not to make a detailed enquiry where
serious allegations of fraud, coercion and
duress
are
required
to
be
resolved
particularly having regard to the fact that a
meeting had to be convened as soon as
possible. The area of divergence is only
this that whereas the majority left it open to
the Collector to determine whether and if
so what enquiry should be held, the view of
the dissenting judge was that the Collector
should hold an enquiry so long as a detailed
enquiry into serious questions of coercion
or fraud was not involved. In either view of
the matter and since we are bound by the
judgment of the Full Bench, the law on the
subject is thus clear. The Collector, in the
course of exercising the power which is
conferred upon him, ought not to enquire
into seriously disputed questions of fact
involving issues of fraud, coercion and
duress. Moreover, the Collector must have
the discretion in each case of determining
on the basis of a summary proceeding
whether the essential requirements of a
valid notice of an intention to move a
motion of no confidence have been
fulfilled. Where in the course of the
summary enquiry, it appears to the
Collector that the written notice does not
comply with the requirements of law, the
Collector would be within his power in
determining as to whether all the required
conditions
have
been
fulfilled,
as
enunciated in sub-section (2) of Section 15.
Whether the Collector in a given case has
5 All. Smt. Bandana Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1495
transgressed his power is separate issue on
which judicial review under Article 226 of
the Constitution would be available.
However, we expressly clarify that we are
not laying down a detailed and exhaustive
enumeration of the circumstances in which
the Collector can determine the validity of
a notice furnished under Section (2) or
those in which he can make a limited
enquiry which, as we have held, he is
entitled and competent to make. Ultimately,
each case depends upon its own facts and it
for the Collector to determine as to whether
the objections raised before him are outside
the scope of the limited inquiry which he
can make upon notice of an intent to move
a motion of no confidence if it is submitted
to him together with a notice of no
confidence."

24. Thus, the objection, if any,
raised before the Collector would serve
only a limited purpose. Whether a meeting
should be convened or not is a matter
between the prescribed authority (in the
present case, the Collector) and the
signatories delivering notice to it. The
Collector while carrying out verification in
compliance with the requirement of subSection (2) of Section 15 of the Act, 1961,
would be at liberty to consider, in those
cases which do not warrant a detailed
enquiry, whether requirements of valid
notice have been fulfilled.

25. It is pertinent to mention here
that in the Full Bench decision in Vikas
Trivedi, this Court considered the nature of
a motion of no confidence while relying
upon the decisions of the Supreme Court as
well as of this Court. It is observed as
follows:-

 "68. The meeting for considering
the motion of no confidence is not a
meeting for proving any charge against the
person against whom motion is brought.
The proposal of no confidence motion may
be one line motion only saying "we express
no confidence" or it may be a proposal
making allegation against the person. For
passing any motion of no confidence proof
of any ground or charge is not necessary. It
is right of the elected members to express
no confidence in Adhyaksha which right
has been conceded to the elected members
as per statutory provisions."

26. It is iterated that in the
affidavits submitted by 69 members of the
Kshettra Panchayat along with objections
filed by the respondent no. 3, the
signatories of the affidavits have expressed
their confidence in Pramukh and have
denied their signatures on the written notice
as well as their participation in any meeting
for formulation of any proposal for motion
of no confidence.

27. Further, on 20.3.2025, 34
members of the Kshettra Panchayat, who
had signed motion of no confidence
appeared before the Collector in person and
filed affidavits stating that they were fully
satisfied with the manner of working and
the work of respondent no.3; that the
respondent no.3 has worked for the benefits
of
the
Kshettra
Panchayat
and
has
uniformly worked for the development of
villages/wards of the entire Kshettra
Panchayat;
that
they
express
their
confidence in respondent no.3; that in case
any statement by means of notary affidavit
has been submitted against the respondent
no.3, it be considered as void. They
appeared before the District Magistrate and
stated that they are making statements
without any duress. Therefore, the District
Magistrate held that in view of 34 members
of the Kshettra Panchayat (who were
1496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
signatories to the written notice) submitting
their affidavits in favour of respondent
no.3, only 36 members remained, who were
signatories to written notice dated 7.3.2025,
who are less than half of the total number
of members of the Kshettra Panchayat
required
to
move
a
written
notice.
Accordingly, the written notice dated
7.3.2025 was found to be not maintainable.

28. In our opinion, such an exercise
by the Collector of considering the
response of the objector-respondent no.3 by
relying on repeated rebuttal affidavits of
12.3.2025
and
20.3.2025,
where
the
signatures on the written notice are denied
and no endeavour being made to verify
signatures on the written notice from the
record of the Kshettra Panchayat, would
not
be
permissible.
Therefore,
the
impugned order of the Collector cannot be
sustained.

29. The observations made herein
above regarding the written notice and the
proposal expressing no confidence can be
summarised as follows:-

 (i) The written notice, if it reflects
clear intention to make a motion of no
confidence, it is not mandatory that the
written notice be in the prescribed format.

 (ii) The written notice is to be
signed by at least half of the total number
of the elected members of the Kshettra
Panchayat. The signatures on the written
notice being disputed, it is for the Collector
to satisfy himself, prima facie, from the
records of the Kshettra Panchayat.

 (iii) The copy of the proposed no
confidence motion does not require the
signatures of any of the signatories to the
written notice.
 (iv) The proceedings or date/s of
any prior meeting of the signatories to the
written notice for formulating and resolving
the proposed motion of no confidence, is of
no consequence. The consideration of the
validity of the written notice by the
Collector cannot be based on that.

 (v) The objections filed to the
written notice are for a limited purpose.
The Collector may conduct a summary
enquiry only to ascertain, without adopting
process of detailed enquiry, whether the
written notice fulfils the requirements of
sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act,
1961. The Collector should keep in mind
the nature of a motion of no confidence as
observed by the Full Bench of this court in
Vikas Trivedi, which is quoted in
paragraph no. 25 of this judgment.

 (vi) It is not open to the Collector
to resolve or enter into a finding of facts of
seriously disputed question such as forgery,
fraud, coercion or duress.

30. It would be pertinent to
reiterate here that though on 7.3.2025,
12.3.2025 and 20.3.2025, the Collector
purportedly directed the CDO/DPRO to
furnish a report, however no report was
filed by them. But it cannot be said that no
enquiry was conducted by the Collector.
An enquiry to ascertain validity of a written
notice does not require an order setting up
an enquiry and for proceedings to be
conducted thereafter. Where evidence is
recorded, documents are admitted and the
Collector comes to a finding, the same
would constitute an enquiry. Accordingly
and under the facts and circumstances of
the case, we find that the Collector in the
instant case has done just that, that is, he
conducted an enquiry. The enquiry is
mandated to be done by the Collector as
5 All. Antram Goel Vs. Power Grid Neemrana Bareilly Transmission Ltd. & Ors.
1497
defined in Section 2(5) of the Act,
1961, which is required to be a summary
enquiry. However, in that enquiry, the
Collector has proceeded to record a finding
on the basis of rebuttal affidavits with
regard to signatures in the written notice
that were denied. Thus the demarcated and
prohibited
realm
of
disputed
factual
questions like forgery, fraud, coercion and /
or duress has been encroached upon in the
enquiry.

31. For the reasons aforesaid, the
impugned order dated 20.03.2025 cannot
be sustained and is hereby quashed. Since
the signatures on the written notice are
disputed in some of the rebuttal affidavits,
the Collector is directed to satisfy himself,
prima facie, after looking into the records
of
the
Kshettra
Panchayat.
On
his
satisfaction, he shall proceed to convene a
meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat in terms
of Section 15 (3) of the Act, 1961. This
writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1497
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 12360 of 2025

Antram Goyal ....Petitioner
Versus
Power
Grid
Neemrana
Bareilly
Transmission Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Shreya Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Pratik J. Nagar

Civil Law - The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
- Sections 10 & 16 - Under Section 10, the
Telegraph Authority is empowered to place and
maintain telegraph lines and posts on private
land subject to payment of compensation for
damage; and under Section 16(1), if such
exercise is resisted or obstructed, the District
Magistrate may, in his discretion, permit the
authority to proceed notwithstanding such
resistance. Held : the District Magistrate is not
required to pass an order under Section 16(1) of
the Act in every case where a person, on whose
property the transmission line is being laid,
raises an objection or files a representation
before
the
District
Magistrate.

District
Magistrate is only required to pass an order
under Section
16(1) when
the
Telegraph
Authority refers a particular matter to the
District Magistrate for passing an order therein.
Petitioner objected to the laying down of
transmission lines over his property. Court
granted liberty to the Telegraph Authority to
refer the matter to the District Magistrate under
Section 16(1) of the Act for dealing with the
said
obstruction/resistance/
representation
made by the petitioner. (Para 9, 11)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. This is a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India wherein the
writ petitioner, being aggrieved by the
action of the Power Grid Neemrana
Bareilly Transmission Limited (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Power Grid Company'),
has prayed for the following substantial
reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
District Magistrate, Aligarh (respondent
no.3) to decide the representation of the
petitioner
dated
28.3.2025
(Annexure
No.6), after providing him with an
opportunity of hearing, most expeditiously