# Vikash Kumar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 311
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-10
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 33495 of 2024
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vikash-kumar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52983
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Practice and Procedure - Constitution
of India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ -
Maintainability - Block Pramukh, against
whom no confidence motion was moved,
was though impleaded as respondent no.
4, but could not be impleaded by name -
Effect - Held, the purpose of impleadment
of a person is only for a notice being sent
to the person to provide an opportunity of
hearing. The respondent No. 4 has already
put in appearance and her counsel has
been heard - In any case, improper
imleadment is a curable defect and can
never be fatal for a writ petition. (Para 22)

B. Local bodies Law - UP Kshettra
Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam,
1961 - Section 15(2) - No Confidence
Motion
-
Competence
of
District
Panchayat Raj Officer to take decision on
its notice - Failure of Collector to perform
its duty - Effect - Held, when under the
provisions of S. 15, jurisdiction is vested in
the Collector to convene a meeting and
take other steps, it is the Collector himself
who is responsible to undertake the
exercise of recording his prima facie
satisfaction as to the validity of the notice
and pass appropriate order thereon - The
District Panchayat Raj Officer has no role
to play and has no jurisdiction to either
reject or to accept a notice of a motion of
no confidence - Either the Collector does
not understand his duties under the Act or
he has willful permitted an illegality to
happen. No one can be permitted to
deviate from a solemn obligation imposed
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on him by statute - High Court imposed
cost of Rs. 50,000/-. (Para 33, 35 and 37)

Writ petition partly allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Vikash Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
311
time would form a reasonable basis for
assessing the amount due and payable to
the writ petitioner, but such process could
be undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e.
arbitration and not by the writ court as it
does not have the expertise in respect of
measurements or construction of roads.

25. A perusal of the matter shows
that collusion of some of the officers of the
appellants with the contractor cannot be
ruled out. Such collusion seems to be the
basis of the writ petition filed before the
High Court."

12. In the present factual matrix, the
petitioner has not been able to bring on record
any document wherein the respondent
authorities have admitted that a particular
sum is owed to them. On the contrary, the
respondents have disputed the claim of the
petitioner in their counter affidavit. One has
to keep in mind that when disputed questions
of fact are present, the writ jurisdiction is not
the viable forum, as such disputes cannot be
decided upon bare exchange of affidavits. As
clearly enunciated in the judgments cited
above, in areas of contractual disputes, parties
have to approach the civil courts or go for
arbitration (if provided for). The writ court
would only in exceptional circumstances,
when the outstanding payments are admitted
by the respondents, enter into the arena and
pass a writ of mandamus and in no other
case.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 311
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.01.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ C No. 33495 of 2024

Vikash Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Mahendra Singh, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Practice and Procedure - Constitution
of India,1950 - Article 226 - Writ -
Maintainability - Block Pramukh, against
whom no confidence motion was moved,
was though impleaded as respondent no.
4, but could not be impleaded by name -
Effect - Held, the purpose of impleadment
of a person is only for a notice being sent
to the person to provide an opportunity of
hearing. The respondent No. 4 has already
put in appearance and her counsel has
been heard - In any case, improper
imleadment is a curable defect and can
never be fatal for a writ petition. (Para 22)

B. Local bodies Law - UP Kshettra
Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam,
1961 - Section 15(2) - No Confidence
Motion
-
Competence
of
District
Panchayat Raj Officer to take decision on
its notice - Failure of Collector to perform
its duty - Effect - Held, when under the
provisions of S. 15, jurisdiction is vested in
the Collector to convene a meeting and
take other steps, it is the Collector himself
who is responsible to undertake the
exercise of recording his prima facie
satisfaction as to the validity of the notice
and pass appropriate order thereon - The
District Panchayat Raj Officer has no role
to play and has no jurisdiction to either
reject or to accept a notice of a motion of
no confidence - Either the Collector does
not understand his duties under the Act or
he has willful permitted an illegality to
happen. No one can be permitted to
deviate from a solemn obligation imposed
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on him by statute - High Court imposed
cost of Rs. 50,000/-. (Para 33, 35 and 37)

Writ petition partly allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

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

2. Niyazuddin & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2020
(3) ADJ 398

3. Writ C No. 11485 of 2024; Narendra Kumar
Gupta and 04 others decided on 10.7.2024

4. Kavita Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; AIR 2018 SC
4143

5. Arti Vs St. of U.P.; 2017 (7) ADJ 30 (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar
Mishra, J.
&
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. The writ petition, as initially
framed, sought a writ of certiorari for
quashing the order dated 21.08.2024 passed
by the District Panchayat Raj Officer,
District-Kushinagar, which is based on an
inquiry
report.
Subsequently,
by
an
amendment, an order passed by the District
Magistrate/Collector,
Kushinagar
on
12.11.2024 has also been challenged. This
order has been passed during the pendency
of the instant writ petition.

2. The petition has been filed by
two petitioners who claim to be elected
members of Block Dudhahi, DistrictKushinagar, having been elected in the
election held in the year 2021. Respondent
No. 4 was elected as Block Pramukh, Block
Dudhahi. The strength of elected members
of the Block Development Council is stated
to be 139. Out of these, 101 members are
stated to have moved a notice of no
confidence in the prescribed pro-forma
along
with
a
notary
affidavit
on
12.08.2024. The notice of no confidence
motion was moved before the Collector, as
provided under Section 15(2) of the U.P.
Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat
Adhiniyam, 19611.

3. When no order was passed by
the Collector, a petition, being Writ-C No.
29128 of 2024, was filed before this Court
whereupon
on
03.09.2024,
learned
Standing Counsel was directed to obtain
instructions. When the matter was taken up
on 4.9.2024, a statement was made by the
learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of
instructions received, that the notice for no
confidence motion has been rejected by an
order dated 21.8.2024. The said writ
petition was, therefore, dismissed as
infructuous.

4. It appears that on receipt of
certain affidavits by persons saying that
their signatures on notice of no confidence
were forged, a Committee was constituted
by
the
Collector
to
look
into
the
allegations.

5. The order of 21.08.2024, initially
impugned in the writ petition, was an order
passed consequent to the report of this
Committee, which rejected the notice of no
confidence on the ground that it was not
maintainable as it was not in accordance
with the relevant rules.

6. On the petition being filed, on
04.10.2024, a detailed order was passed
noting the contention of the respective
counsel for the parties and directing the
Collector to file his personal affidavit.

7. A personal affidavit of the
Collector was filed on the next date.
1 All. Vikash Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
313
8. Subsequently, when the matter
was taken up on 13.11.2024, the order
dated 12.11.2024 passed by the Collector
was produced by the learned Standing
Counsel. It is this order which has been
subjected to challenge by means of an
amendment to the writ petition.

9. It has been submitted by Shri
Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioners, that the order
dated 21.08.2024 of District Panchayat Raj
Officer, which is based upon a report of the
Committee constituted by Collector, rejects
the notice of no confidence on the ground
that several signatures thereon were stated
to be forged. The Inquiry Committee in its
report dated 17.08.2024 found that there
were affidavits of 48 members stating that
they were shown as signatories to the
notice of no confidence, fraudulently and
by
forging
their
signatures
thereon.
Consequently and since the signatures of
less than half of the members of the
Council were found to be genuine, the
show-cause notice was rejected.

10. It is submitted that during the
pendency of the writ petition, the Collector
has passed the order dated 12.11.2024
which is on the same lines as the inquiry
report and the order of the District
Panchayat Raj Officer.

11. In the afore-noted factual
background, Shri Shashi Nandan states that
District Panchayat Raj Officer has no
jurisdiction to pass the order dated
21.8.2024. Under the Act, 1961, it is only
the Collector exercising powers under
Section 15, who may pass such an order.

12. Insofar as the order passed by the
Collector is concerned, he has submitted that
under sub-section 3(i) of Section 15, a time
frame has been provided. Under this
provision, the Collector is required to
convene a meeting for consideration of notice
of no confidence which shall not be later than
30 days from the date the notice under subsection (2) of Section 15 is delivered to him.

13. Section 15(3)(ii) of the Act, 1961
also provides for not less than 15 days notice
being provided to the elected members prior
to convening the meeting to consider the
motion of no confidence.

14. It is next submitted that Section
15 only requires the Collector to examine as
to whether the notice of no confidence has
been signed by at least half of the total
number of elected members of the Kshettra
Panchayat. No further inquiry is required or
mandated by law. Therefore, the direction of
the Collector to constitute a committee to
examine the notice of no confidence was
without any sanction of law. Once at least
half of the total number of elected members
had appended their signatures on the notice of
no confidence, the only option available to
the Collector was to convene the meeting to
consider the motion of no confidence. The
issue raised through the motion of no
confidence made to the Collector, therefore,
would necessarily be required to be decided
on the floor of the House and cannot be
sought to be scuttled by an inquiry
Committee constituted by the Collector
considering the validity of the motion of no
confidence in the manner done.

15. He has relied upon judgments
in the cases of Smt. Sheela Devi & Ors. v.
State of U.P. & Ors.2 and Niyazuddin &
Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.3.

16. Learned Standing Counsel
supporting
the
impugned
order
has
submitted that a valid notice to bring a
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
motion of no confidence has to be signed
by at least half of the elected members. The
Collector received a complaint from 48
members
who
were
alleged
to
be
signatories of the notice of no confidence,
stating that they had not put their signatures
thereon.
Hence,
a
Committee
was
constituted by the Collector to examine this
aspect of the matter and in doing so, the
Collector committed no illegality.

17. In support of his contentions, he
has placed reliance upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar
Gupta and 04 others4. The judgment cited,
placing reliance upon the Full Bench
decision in Smt. Sheela Devi, has observed
as follows:-

"From the afore-cited judgment, it
clear emerges that the District Magistrate
has to be at least prima facie satisfied that the
notice of no confidence is a valid notice as
per the requirements of Section 15(2) of the
Act."

18. It is therefore, submitted that it is
for achieving this prima facie satisfaction and
since there were complaints of forged
signatures on the notice of no confidence, the
Inquiry Committee was duly constituted. The
same therefore, cannot be faulted with.

19. Shri Sanjeev Singh, who appears
for the respondent No. 4, has submitted that
the respondent No. 4 should be impleaded by
name which has not been done. Since the
Block Pramukh against whom the notice of
no confidence was given is a necessary party
and since she has not been impleaded
properly, the writ petition must necessarily
fail.

20. He has relied upon paragraph
23 of the judgment of the Apex Court in
Kavita v. State of U.P. and others5 as also
upon certain paragraphs of Narendra
Kumar Gupta (supra).

21.
We
have
considered
the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record. The
following questions arise for determination
in the writ petition:-

 (i) Whether the writ petition is
liable to fail as the respondent No. 4, the
Block Pramukh, against whom, the notice
of no confidence has been moved, having
not been impleaded by name?
 (ii) Whether the Collector was
competent to order a fact finding inquiry to
go into the question of alleged forgery of
signatures on the notice of no confidence?

(iii)
Whether
the
District
Panchayat Raj Officer had any jurisdiction
to pass the order dated 21.08.2024?

(iv) Whether the order dated
12.11.2024 passed by the Collector is
valid?

(v) Relief, if any, to which the
petitioner is entitled?

22. As regards the first question, it
is the contention of learned counsel for the
respondent No. 4 that the said respondent
has not been impleaded by name, therefore,
the petition has to fail. In our considered
opinion, this submission is liable to be
rejected. The purpose of impleadment of a
person is only for a notice being sent to the
person to provide an opportunity of
hearing. The respondent No. 4 has already
put in appearance and her counsel has been
heard. Therefore, if she has not been
impleaded by name, yet she has been
afforded
opportunity
of
hearing,
the
submission lacks substance. In any case,
improper imleadment is a curable defect
and can never be fatal for a writ petition.
1 All. Vikash Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
315
The
first
question
is
answered
accordingly.

23. The reply to the second
question framed, as to whether Collector
was competent to order a fact finding
inquiry by a Committee of three persons, is
to be found in paragraph 6 of the judgment
of Supreme Court in the case of Kavita and
which referring to a Full Bench of this
Court in Smt. Sheela Devi, held as
follows:-

"6. As aforesaid, 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. Be that as it may,
even the first ground urged by the appellant
has been justly negatived by the High Court
following the exposition of the Full Bench
of the same High Court in Smt. Sheela
Devi
v.
State
of
U.P.
and
Ors.,
MANU/UP/0129/2015 : AIR 2015 which
decision adverts to the dictum of another
Full Bench decision of the same High
Court in Mathura Prasad Tewari Vs.
Assistant District Panchayat Officer,
Faizabad 1966 ALJ 612. In the impugned
judgment,
the
Division
Bench
has
reproduced paragraph 23 of the Full Bench
decision in Sheela Devi, (supra) which
reads thus:

"23. For these reasons, we have
come to the conclusion that where a notice
is delivered to the Collector under subsection (2) of Section 15, the Collector has
the discretion to determine whether the
notice fulfills the essential requirements of
a valid notice under sub-section (2).
However, consistent with the stipulation of
time enunciated in sub-section (3) of
Section 15 of convening a meeting no later
than thirty days from the date of delivery of
the notice and of issuing at least a fifteen
days' notice to all the elected members of
the Kshettra Panchayat, it is not open to
the Collector to launch a detailed
evidentiary enquiry into the validity of the
signatures which are appended to the
notice. Where a finding in regard to the
validity of the signatures can only be
arrived at in an enquiry on the basis of
evidence adduced in the course of an
evidentiary hearing at a full-fledged trial,
such an enquiry would be outside the
purview of Section 15. The Collector does
not exercise the powers of a Court upon
receipt of a notice and when he transmits
the notice for consideration at a meeting
of the elected members of the Kshettra
Panchayat. Hence, it would not be open to
the Collector to resolve or enter findings of
fact on seriously disputed questions such as
forgery, fraud and coercion. However,
consistent with the law which has been laid
down by the Full Bench in Mathura Prasad
Tewari's case, it is open to the Collector,
having due regard to the nature and ambit
of his jurisdiction under sub-section (3) to
determine as to whether the requirements
of a valid notice under sub-section (2) of
Section 15 have been fulfilled. The
proceeding before the Collector under subsection (2) of Section 15 of the Act of 1961
is more in the nature of a summary
proceeding. The Collector for the purpose
of Section 15, does not have the trappings
of a Court exercising jurisdiction on the
basis of evidence adduced at a trial of a
judicial proceeding. Whether in a given
case, the Collector has transgressed the
limits of his own jurisdiction is a matter
which can be addressed in a challenge
under Article 226 of the Constitution. We
clarify that we have not provided an
exhaustive
enumeration
or
list
of
circumstances in which the Collector can
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
determine the validity of the notice
furnished under sub-section (2) in each
case and it is for the Collector in the first
instance and for the Court in the exercise
of its power of judicial review, if it is
moved, to determine as to whether the
limits on the power of the Collector have
been duly observed."

24. It is pertinent to mention here that
in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi, the Full
Bench of this Court referred to and
approved the observations made by a
Division Bench of this Court in Utma Devi
vs. State of U.P. & Ors.6. The Full Bench
has observed as follows:-

"19. .............. In that case, of the
82 elected members of the Kshettra
Panchayat, a notice of no confidence was
presented with the signatures of forty nine
members. Thirty six appeared before the
District
Magistrate
and
their
signatures/thumbs
impressions
were
verified.
Nineteen
persons
had
filed
affidavits
supporting
the
motion but
subsequently respondent no 5 therein filed
affidavits of the same persons denying their
earlier signatures. Accordingly, a notice
was issued to those members to appear
before the District Magistrate, of whom
seven
appeared
and
supported
their
affidavits filed in support of the motion of
no confidence. The District Magistrate held
that since the remaining ten members who
had filed their affidavits in support of the
motion for no confidence did not appear
and notice on two members could not be
served, the motion was not supported by
the required number of half of the elected
representatives. Holding that this was an
improper exercise of jurisdiction, the
Division Bench observed as follows:

"There cannot be a presumption
about the signatures being forged or not
being that of the members. Contention
raised on behalf of the petitioner appears
to be correct. Under the Act, 1961 and the
Rules prescribed, there is no requirement
of any actual physical presence of the
members before the District Magistrate in
support of the motion. What is only
required is that the motion should be
signed by more than half of the members,
and if there are affidavits on record in
support of the motion and further if there
are affidavits to the contrary submitted by
the Block Pramukh, it is the duty of the
District Magistrate to satisfy himself from
the records of the Kshetra Panchayat as to
whether prima facie the motion bears the
signatures of members or not. He is not
required to act as the Civil Court and
enter into the necessities of evidence for
coming to the conclusion that the
signatures on the motion are genuine or
not."

Here again, the Division Bench
has clearly laid down that the District
Magistrate is not required to act as a civil
court and to enquire into matters of
evidence for coming to the conclusion as to
whether the signatures on the motion are
genuine or otherwise."
(emphasis supplied)

25. It is pertinent to refer to some
of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act,
1961, which are 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
1 All. Vikash Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
317
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.

(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."

26. It is evident from perusal of the
provisions of Section 15, as quoted above,
that an onerous responsibility is on the
Collector for compliance of the provisions
to the letter. Under sub-section (5) of
Section 2 of the Act, 1961, the term
'Collector' includes an Additional Collector
to whom the Collector may have, by order
in writing, delegated any of his function
under the Act, 1961. The Legislature, in its
wisdom, has confined the power of
delegation
by
the
Collector
to
the
Additional Collector alone. That is to say,
other than the Collector, it is only the
Additional Collector to whom any of the
functions of the Collector under the Act can
be delegated by order in writing. The
provision does not envisage delegating or
sub-delegating of the power of the
Collector to a Committee for satisfying
himself regarding genuineness of the
signatures of the members signing the
notice. As observed by this Court in Utma
Devi and affirmed in the case of Smt.
Sheela Devi, where there are affidavits on
record in support of the motion and further
if there are affidavits to the contrary
submitted, it is the duty of the Collector to
satisfy himself from the record of the
Kshettra Panchayat as to whether, prima
facie, the motion bears the signatures of
members or not. He is not required to act as
a civil court and enter into the niceties of
evidence for coming to a conclusion that
the signatures on the motion of no
confidence are genuine or not.

27. What we find from the record is
that a scrutiny report (परीक्षण आख्य ) dated
17.8.2024 was prepared by a three
members Inquiry Committee consisting of
the
Assistant
Development
Officer
(Panchayat),
the
Block
Development
Officer and the District Panchayat Raj
Officer pursuant to an office order dated
16.8.2024
passed
by
the
Chief
Development Officer. The scrutiny report
is to the effect that on 12.8.2024, some
members of Kshettra Panchayat Dudhahi
alongwith 101 members of the Kshettra
Panchayat submitted a notarized affidavit
before
the
Chief
Development
Officer/Incharge Collector for purpose of
moving a no confidence motion against
Smt. Ramawati Devi, Pramukh, Kshettra
Panchayat Dudhahi, District Kushinagar
with a demand for fixing a date in that
regard. That on 16.8.2024, the applicant,
Deepak Kumar Mishra, and other members
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitted a complaint to the Collector,
Kushinagar to the effect that on the basis of
fraudulent documents, a no confidence
motion is being brought against the Block
Pramukh. For inquiry into the matter and
for verification of documents, the Chief
Development Officer constituted a three
members Verification/Inquiry Committee
by an order dated 6.8.2024 under the
Chairmanship of the District Panchayat Raj
Officer, the members of which Committee
were those aforesaid.

28. In the inquiry report, it was
stated that the total elected members of
Kshettra Panchayat Dudhahi is 139, of
which one member has died and, therefore,
at present 138 members are there; that 48
members presented themselves before the
Committee and their identity cards were
scrutinized and verified; that the Block
Development Officer and the Assistant
Development Officer (Panchayat), Dudhahi
identified all those 48 members of the
Kshettra Panchayat and they were found to
be
correct;
that
all
those
members
submitted
affidavits
to
the
Block
Development Officer, Dudhahi to the effect
that prior to that they had not submitted any
affidavits and if any person has submitted
affidavits with signatures of the members,
the same should be considered as forged
and fabricated; that additionally, the
verification/inquiry Committee got the
entire procedure video recorded in which
all the members present there stated that
they had never signed any letter relating to
no confidence and in that no confidence
motion, their fabricated signatures have
been made; that the aforesaid 48 Kshettra
Panchayat members' list was compared to
the list of 101 Kshettra Panchayat members
enclosed alongwith the no confidence
motion filed on 12.8.2024; that the names
of all the 48 members were found in the no
confidence motion enclosed in the list of
members of the Kshettra Panchayat; and
that since these 48 Kshettra Panchayat
members have denied their signatures on
the no confidence motion against the
Pramukh
of
the
Kshettra
Panchayat
Dudhahi, therefore, only the resultant
number of 53 members who support the
motion
for
no
confidence
filed
on
12.8.2024, remain.

29. It is further mentioned in the
inquiry report that under the provisions of
Section 15(2) of the Act, 1961, a minimum
of half of the total number of the elected
members of the Kshettra Panchayat are
mandated to sign the written notice and the
total number of the elected members of the
Kshettra Panchayat Dudhai is 139 and,
therefore, the half of the members would be
70 in number, who necessarily had to sign
the no confidence motion; that on the
confidence motion, only 53 members have
been found to have signed which is less
than 50% of the specified number. It is
further stated that as per Rule 1 of the
Rules with regard to moving a no
confidence motion against the Pramukh and
Up-Pramukh, the proposal means a written
notice in Form-1 of the Schedule thereof;
that the no confidence motion filed on
12.8.2024 is not in accordance with the
prescribed format and, therefore, the no
confidence motion is not maintainable.

30. On 21.8.2024, an order was
passed by the District Panchayat Raj
Officer that the application dated 12.8.2024
regarding the no confidence motion is
rejected.

31. As regards the notice not being
in the proper format, a coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Arti vs. State of
U.P.7 has held that though the relevant
1 All. Vikash Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
319
rules provide for a particular format,
however, if in the written notice, intention
to make a motion for no confidence is
reflected from perusal of the notice, it
would be sufficient notice of intention to
make the motion and as such it is not
mandatory for the motion to be in the
prescribed
format.
The
relevant
observations are as follows:

 "18. The object of giving a
written notice of the intention to make the
motion of no confidence is to make
possible for the Collector to ascertain as to
whether the motion is backed by at least
half of the elected members or not. The
said requirement is of a mandatory
character. If the written notice of intention
to make the motion is not signed by at least
half of the total number of the elected
members, the Collector would not get
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same,
nor to issue notice under sub-section (3) of
section 15. However, at the same time,
even if notice of the intention to make the
motion is not given in the prescribed format
but it contains all the ingredients of Form-I,
it is always open to the Collector to cull out
the intention of the members giving the
notice and to act upon it. The object of
prescribing Form-I is only of a procedural
nature to enable the Collector to understand
its import and to act without delay. Where a
written notice of intention to make the
motion is given in prescribed format, it
becomes easy for the Collector to decipher
intention of those giving the notice and to
act accordingly. The copy of the written
notice of intention to make the motion is
thus for the convenience of the Collector. A
person giving notice to the Collector which
is not in prescribed format is always at the
risk of Collector not taking due cognizance
of the same. However, in a case where the
Collector acts on a notice of intention to
bring forth motion of no-confidence,
though not contained in prescribed format,
the person against whom the motion is
brought cannot complain of the same. He is
in no manner prejudiced thereby as the
notice is not meant for him but for the
Collector. Even its copy is not required to
be sent to the members or the person
against whom the motion is brought. Only
the copy of the proposed no confidence
motion is to be annexed alongwith the
notice of the Collector."

32. As far as the denial of
signatures by 48 members, as stated in the
inquiry report, is concerned, it is for the
Collector personally to verify the signatures
appearing in the written notice of intention
to make a motion of non-confidence with
the records of the Kshettra Panchayat as to
whether, prima facie, the motion bears the
signatures of members or not.

33. Insofar as the jurisdiction of
District Panchayat Raj Officer to reject a no
confidence motion is concerned, under
Section 15 of the Act, 1961, it is the
Collector to whom a notice of no
confidence is to be delivered in person by
any one of the persons signing the notice. It
is for the Collector, thereafter, to either
reject the same lawfully, or to call a
meeting for consideration of the no
confidence motion after giving at least 15
days notice to the members to participate in
such meeting. When under the provisions
of section 15, jurisdiction is vested in the
Collector to convene a meeting and take
other steps, it is the Collector himself who
is responsible to undertake the exercise of
recording his prima facie satisfaction as to
the validity of the notice and pass
appropriate order thereon. Any power
conferred by the Act, 1961 cannot be
delegated by the Collector to any person,
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
other than the authority to whom delegation
is permitted. The involvement of District
Panchayat Raj Officer in this process is
absolutely alien to the relevant provisions
under Section 15 of the Act, 1961. The
District Panchayat Raj Officer has no role
to play and has no jurisdiction to either
reject or to accept a notice of a motion of
no confidence. The order of the District
Panchayat Raj Officer dated 21.08.2024 is,
therefore, wholly and completely without
jurisdiction. The question nos.2 and 3 are
answered accordingly.

34. Insofar as the fourth question
framed by the Court is concerned, given the
mandate of Section 15 of the Act, 1961, in
our considered opinion, the Collector is
mandated to pass such an order promptly.
The legislature was conscious of the fact
that in matters relating to no confidence
motion being moved and the same being
put before a House for vote in due course,
time is the essence. The elements of
coercion and offers to members of the
House to sway the votes cannot be ruled
out. The Collector is expected, therefore, to
act with alacrity, which has not been done
in the instant case. We find that in his order
dated 12.11.2024, the Collector has merely
relied upon the inquiry report dated
17.8.2024, which is illegal and deserves to
be set aside.

35. There is another aspect of the
matter. The Collector took no steps
whatsoever to consider the motion for nonconfidence as to whether the application
was in order. He stood on the sidelines,
thereby abdicating his responsibility and
his solemn obligation under the Act, 1961.
Either the Collector does not understand his
duties under the Act or he has willful
permitted an illegality to happen. No one
can be permitted to deviate from a solemn
obligation imposed on him by statute.

36. It is pertinent to mention here
that even when the personal affidavit of the
Collector was filed in Court on 21.10.2024,
he sought to justify his actions or rather his
inaction. When the matter was next listed
on 4.11.2024, certain oral observations
were made by the Court regarding the
conduct of the Collector. It was then that
the
Collector
passed
the
order
on
12.11.2024 and that too solely on the basis
of a so-called report of the Chief
Development
Officer
dated
20.8.2024
(Annexure PA-5 to the personal affidavit)
which report merely affirms the aforesaid
scrutiny/inquiry report dated 17.8.2024.
The order of 12.11.2024 has been passed
hurriedly, as a 'knee jerk' reaction to the
oral observations of the Court on 4.11.2024
and is an afterthought and an attempt by the
Collector to 'cover his tracks' which is
nothing but a masquerade. It has been
passed after nearly 3 months of the delivery
of the motion of no confidence on
12.8.2024 and that too without considering
the mandate of this Court in Utma Devi. No
independent
application
of
mind
is
reflected in the order dated 12.11.2024.
Therefore, the order is illegal and invalid.
We find that the Collector has acted
contrary to the statute. Accordingly, the
fourth question framed by this Court is
answered in the negative.

37.
Under
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case, the impugned
orders dated 21.08.2024 and 12.11.2024 are
quashed.
The
inquiry
report
dated
17.8.2024 was made by a Committee
constituted contrary to the letter and spirit
of the Act, 1961 and, therefore, it is also set
aside.
1 All. M/S Arya Rice Mill Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
321
38. Since the actions of the
Collector concerned in constituting the
Committee to conduct an inquiry and
permitting the District Panchayat Raj
Officer to pass the impugned order dated
21.8.2024 has been held to be an abdication
of statutory responsibility by the concerned
Collector leading to provisions of the Act,
1961 being sought to be rendered nugatory,
we partly allow the writ petition with cost
of Rs.50,000/- that shall be paid by the
State Government to the petitioners within
a month from today. It shall be open to the
State Government to recover the amount of
cost
from
the
concerned
authority/
Collector.

39.
The
District
Magistrate/Collector
is
directed
to
personally undertake the exercise of
satisfying himself as to the validity of the
notice in terms of the judgment in Utma
Devi as affirmed by a Full Bench of this
Court in Smt. Sheela Devi, the extract of
the judgment whereof is quoted in
paragraph no. 24 above. If the District
Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied as to
the signatures of the members of the
Kshettra Panchayat in the written notice of
intention to make the no confidence motion
after looking into the records of the
Kshettra Panchayat, he shall proceed to
convene a meeting of Kshettra Panchayat
for consideration of 'no confidence motion'
at the office of Kshettra Panchayat on a
date appointed by him, within a period of
thirty days from today and shall give to the
elected members of Kshettra Panchayat
notice of not less than fifteen days of such
meeting in the manner prescribed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 321
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 41517 of 2024

M/S Arya Rice Mill ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sadhana Dubey, Shashi Kant Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Section 21 - Objections to
jurisdiction - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 - Section 16 - Competence of
arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction
- Objection to jurisdiction, particularly in
regard
to
territorial
or
pecuniary
jurisdiction, is to be taken at the earliest
possible opportunity and, in any case,
before settlement of issues. If such
objection is not taken at the earliest, it
cannot be allowed at a subsequent stage.
In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 16
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a
plea that the arbitral tribunal does not
have jurisdiction should be raised not
later than the submission of the defence.
If the excess of jurisdiction crops up
during the proceedings, the objection
should be made at that very time. In any
case,
objection
on
the
question
of
jurisdiction has to be made before the
arbitral tribunal itself, and the arbitral
tribunal has the power to rule on its own
jurisdiction. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Civil Law - The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Section 21 - Objections to
jurisdiction - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 - Petitioner assailed the order
passed by the Arbitrator on the ground
that the Executive Director, U.P. State
Employees'
Welfare
Corporation,
had