SMT. KAVITA versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS. on 5 September 2018

656

[2018] 10 S.C.R. 656

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 10 S.C.R.

A

SMT. KAVITA

v.

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHTHROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

B(Civil Appeal No. 2623 of 2018)

SEPTEMBER 05, 2018

[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND

DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]

U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam,C1961– s.15– Appellant, Block Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, wasissued no confidence motion notice by the Collector – Writ petitionfiled by appellant, dismissed – Plea of appellant that there was noclear 15 days’ notice as contemplated u/sub-s.(3) of s.15 – Held:Rejected – Appellant avoided to receive the notice personally andDhence it was sent by post – Appellant failed to produce any materialon record to show that the notice was dispatched after the 17[th] day(the day fixed for meeting, as per the notice) – Further, on appellant’sown admission in the writ petition, it was evident that the objectionto the said notice relating to signatures of few members who hadsigned the notice was taken on the 16[th] day itself – Another groundEurged by the appellant that the Collector ought to have enquiredinto the validity of the signatures of members, who subsequentlyfiled affidavits stating that their signatures were obtained by fraud,was also justly negatived by the High Court – Impugned judgmentdoes not warrant any interference.F

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The appellant had refused/avoided to receivethe notice personally and hence it was sent by post. The HighCourt also found that the appellant had failed to produce anymaterial on record to show that the notice was dispatched afterGthe 17[th] day and that on the appellant’s own admission in the writpetition, it was evident that the objection to the said notice wastaken on the 16[th] day itself relating to signatures of few memberswho had signed the notice. This was a strong circumstance tobelie the tall claim of the appellant. Taking an overall view of the H

matter, the High Court noted that the issue involved a disputedquestion of fact and could not be decided in writ jurisdiction. Atthe same time, the High Court took note of the fact that themeeting was duly conducted as scheduled in terms of the statednotice and the no confidence motion was passed by a majority,against the appellant. There is no reason to depart from theconclusion recorded by the High Court for rejecting the challengethat no clear 15 days’ notice was given as claimed by the appellant.Accordingly, this contention must fail and is rejected.[Para 5] [657-A-D]

1.2 Since the stated notice has already been acted uponand the no confidence motion has been passed against theappellant by majority, no further enquiry into the grounds urgedby the appellant is warranted. Even the first ground urged by theappellant that the Collector ought to have enquired into thevalidity of the signatures of 10 members, who subsequently filedaffidavits stating that their signatures were obtained by fraud,was justly negatived by the High Court. [Paras 6, 8] [661-G-H;662-A]

Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 2015All. 65 ; Mathura Prasad Tewari v. Assistant District Panchayat Officer, Faizabad 1966 ALJ 612 –approved.

Kiran Pal Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.2018 (7) SCALE 605 – relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2623of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2017 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No. 27912 of 2017.

Aditya Ranjan, Md. Shahid Anwar, Aamir Naseem, GyanendraSingh, Deepak Goel, Advs. for the appearing parties.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2018] 10 S.C.R.

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed againstthe judgment and order dated 3[rd] August, 2017, passed by the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No.27912 of 2017, whereby theDivision Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by theBappellant for challenging the no confidence motion notice issued underSection 15 of The U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila PanchayatsAdhiniyam, 1961 (for short, “the Act”).

2. A Notice was issued by the Collector/District Magistrate,Bulandshahar, U.P., dated 15[th] June, 2017 on the basis of requisitionCgiven by 32 members out of 59 members of the Kshettra Panchayat,expressing no confidence against the appellant who was the BlockPramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Lakhawati at the relevant time. Thenotice had fixed the meeting date as 1[st] July, 2017 i.e. on the 17[th] dayfrom the date of notice. The appellant challenged the said notice by wayDof a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad on two counts.First, that the Collector had failed to hold an enquiry into the validity ofsignatures of 10 members, who subsequently filed affidavits stating thattheir signatures were obtained by fraud. Second, that there was no clear15 days’ notice as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 15 ofthe Act. The Division Bench, after considering the factual positionEemanating from the record before it, negatived both the contentions andeventually dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant vide theimpugned judgment.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has approached this CourtFraising the self-same two grounds urged before the High Court, forchallenging the validity of the no confidence motion notice dated15[th] June, 2017. The respondents have supported the reasons recordedby the High Court and would contend that both the grounds urged by theappellant are devoid of any merit.

G4. We have heard Mr. Aditya Ranjan, learned counsel for theappellant.

5. Reverting to the second contention that there was no clear 15days’ notice, this aspect has been considered by the High Court on the H

basis of record before it, revealing that the appellant had refused/avoidedto receive the notice personally and hence it was sent by post. The HighCourt also found that the appellant had failed to produce any material onrecord to show that the notice was dispatched after the 17[th] day andthat on the appellant’s own admission in the writ petition, it was evidentthat the objection to the said notice was taken on the 16[th] day itselfrelating to signatures of few members who had signed the notice. Thiswas a strong circumstance to belie the tall claim of the appellant. Takingan overall view of the matter, the High Court noted that the issueinvolved a disputed question of fact and could not be decided in writjurisdiction. At the same time, the High Court took note of the fact thatthe meeting was duly conducted as scheduled in terms of the statednotice and the no confidence motion was passed by a majority, againstthe appellant. We, therefore, find no reason to depart from theconclusion recorded by the High Court for rejecting the challenge thatno clear 15 days’ notice was given as claimed by the appellant.Accordingly, this contention must fail and is rejected.

6. As aforesaid, since the stated notice has already been actedupon and the no confidence motion has been passed against theappellant by majority, no further enquiry into the grounds urged by theappellant is warranted. Be that as it may, even the first ground urged bythe appellant has been justly negatived by the High Court following theexposition of the Full Bench of the same High Court in Smt. SheelaDevi Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.,[1] which decision adverts to the dictumof another Full Bench decision of the same High Court in MathuraPrasad Tewari Vs. Assistant District Panchayat Officer, Faizabad.[2]In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench has reproducedparagraph 23 of the Full Bench decision in Sheela Devi, (supra) whichreads thus:

“23. For these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that wherea notice is delivered to the Collector under sub-section (2) ofSection 15, the Collector has the discretion to determine whetherthe notice fulfills the essential requirements of a valid noticeunder sub-section (2). However, consistent with the stipulation oftime enunciated in sub-section (3) of Section 15 of convening ameeting no later than thirty days from the date of delivery of the 1 AIR 2015 All. 65

2 1966 ALJ 612

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

notice and of issuing at least a fifteen days’ notice to all the electedmembers of the Kshettra Panchayat, it is not open to theCollector to launch a detailed evidentiary enquiry into thevalidity of the signatures which are appended to the notice.Where a finding in regard to the validity of the signaturescan only be arrived at in an enquiry on the basis ofevidence adduced in the course of an evidentiary hearingat a full-fledged trial, such an enquiry would be outside thepurview of Section 15. The Collector does not exercise thepowers of a Court upon receipt of a notice and when hetransmits the notice for consideration at a meeting of theelected members of the Kshettra Panchayat. Hence, it wouldnot be open to the Collector to resolve or enter findings of fact onseriously disputed questions such as forgery, fraud and coercion.However, consistent with the law which has been laid down bythe Full Bench in Mathura Prasad Tewari’s case, it is open to theCollector, having due regard to the nature and ambit of hisjurisdiction under sub-section (3) to determine as to whether therequirements of a valid notice under sub-section (2) of Section 15have been fulfilled. The proceeding before the Collector undersub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act of 1961 is more in thenature of a summary proceeding. The Collector for the purposeof Section 15, does not have the trappings of a Court exercisingjurisdiction on the basis of evidence adduced at a trial of a judicialproceeding. Whether in a given case, the Collector hastransgressed the limits of his own jurisdiction is a matter whichcan be addressed in a challenge under Article 226 of theConstitution. We clarify that we have not provided an exhaustiveenumeration or list of circumstances in which the Collector candetermine the validity of the notice furnished under sub-section(2) in each case and it is for the Collector in the first instance andfor the Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review, if it ismoved, to determine as to whether the limits on the power of theCollector have been duly observed.”

(emphasis supplied)

7. Notably, this Court in the case of Kiran Pal Singh Vs. TheState of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (in C.A. No.2622 of 2018 decided on17[th] May, 2018)[3] has had an occasion to explicate on the purport ofSection 15(2) of the Act. In paragraph 15 of this decision the Courtobserved thus:

“15. To appreciate the controversy, we have to understand thescheme engrafted under Section 15 of the Act. Subsection (2) ofSection 15 provides that a written notice of intention to make themotion in such form as may be prescribed, signed by at least halfof the total number of elected members of the Kshettra Panchayatfor the time being together with a copy of the proposed motion,shall be delivered in person, by any one of the members signingthe notice, to the Collector having jurisdiction over the KshettraPanchayat. Subsection (3) requires the Collector to convene ameeting. At this stage, the jurisdiction that the Collectorhas is only to scan the notice to find out whether it fulfillsthe essential requirements of a valid notice. The exerciseof the said discretion, as we perceive, has to be summaryin nature. There cannot be a detailed inquiry with regard tothe validity of the notice. We are obliged to think so assubsection (3) mandates that a meeting has to be convened notlater than 30 days from the date of delivery of the notice andfurther there should be at least 15 days’ notice to be given to allthe elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat. TheCollector, therefore, should not assume power to enter intoan arena or record a finding on seriously disputedquestions of facts relating to fraud, undue influence orcoercion. His only duty is to determine whether there hasbeen a valid notice as contemplated under Sub section (2)of Section 15. His delving deep to conduct a regularinquiry would frustrate the provision. He must functionwithin his own limits and leave the rest to be determined inthe meeting.”

(emphasis supplied)

8. In view of the above, the ground urged by the appellant that theCollector ought to have enquired into the validity of the signatures of 10

3 2018 (7) SCALE 605

A

BCDE

F

G

H

Amembers, who subsequently filed affidavits stating that their signatureswere obtained by fraud, had been justly negatived by the High Court.Hence, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. Asno other contention has been urged, the appeal must fail.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

B

Divya Pandey

Appeal dismissed.

C

D

E

F

G

H