In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court set aside an order of the District Magistrate of Chandauli, which had rejected a no-confidence motion against the Block Pramukh of Block Chahaniya, Chandauli. The court clarified the application of Section 15(12) of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, concluding that the one-year bar on fresh no-confidence motions does not apply when the initial notice itself is defective and no meeting has been convened.
The petitioner, Smt. Phulbasa, along with 71 elected members of the Block Development Committee, had submitted a notice of no-confidence against the Block Pramukh. The District Magistrate had rejected this notice on 1st August 2024, citing Section 15(12) of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, which prohibits the submission of a subsequent no-confidence motion for one year after the failure of a previous motion.
The rejection was based on an earlier notice dated 4th March 2024, which had also been turned down due to insufficient signatories. The petitioner argued that Section 15(12) was not applicable because the earlier motion was never put to a vote since it was found invalid at the notice stage.
Legal Issues:
The core legal issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 15(12), specifically whether the one-year bar on filing subsequent no-confidence motions applies in cases where the original notice was defective and no meeting had been convened. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the bar under this provision only applies when a valid meeting is held and fails due to either lack of quorum or the no-confidence motion not being carried.
The court had to determine whether the rejection of an invalid notice without convening a meeting triggers the one-year prohibition under Section 15(12).
Court Proceedings and Arguments:
The case, Smt Phulbasa vs. District Magistrate Collector and Others (WRIT – C No. 31171 of 2024), was heard by a division bench comprising Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Jayant Banerji. The petitioner was represented by counsels Archana Singh and Saurabh Pratap Singh, while the respondents were represented by the Standing Counsel, Sadhana Dubey, Shashi Kant Shukla, and C.S.C.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that since no meeting was convened on the earlier notice due to its invalidity, Section 15(12) was not triggered. They relied on precedents set by the Supreme Court in Kiran Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. (AIR 2018 SC 3000) and the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Prema Devi vs. State of U.P. (2012), which clarified that the bar on subsequent motions only applies when a meeting has actually taken place and the no-confidence motion fails.
On the other hand, the respondents contended that the impugned order was in line with the law and Section 15(12) should be read expansively to include situations where a notice is rejected, regardless of whether a meeting was convened or not.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
The court extensively quoted from Section 15(12) of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, which reads:
“If the motion is not carried as aforesaid or if the meeting could not be held for want of quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same Pramukh or Up-Pramukh shall be received until after the expiration of one year from the date of such meeting.”
The bench interpreted the provision to mean that the one-year bar applies only when a valid meeting is convened, and the no-confidence motion fails either due to lack of quorum or because it was not passed. The court observed:
– “It is only after a valid notice of intention to make a motion of no confidence is preferred and thereupon a meeting is convened and fails either for want of quorum or because the motion does not pass muster, that the bar under Section 15(12) would apply.”
The court held that since no valid meeting had taken place due to the earlier notice being defective, the one-year prohibition under Section 15(12) did not come into play.
– “The bar does not apply where the notice expressing intention to make a motion of no confidence is itself defective and as a consequence, no occasion arises for convening a meeting.”
The court quashed the District Magistrate’s order dated 1st August 2024 and directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the notice within three days. If found valid with the requisite number of signatures, the District Magistrate was ordered to proceed in accordance with the law to convene a meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion.
Case Title: Smt. Phulbasa vs. District Magistrate Collector and Others
Case No.: Writ – C No. 31171 of 2024
