WRIT PETITION None on 7 November 2017

Conclusion

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47857 of 2017

Petitioner :- Mumtaz Ali

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Singh,Yash TandonCounsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vindeshwari Prasad Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

Order on Civil Misc. Review Application No.- 397600 of2017

This application has been filed for review of the judgement andorder dated 7 November 2017 passed by this Court by whichthe writ petition was dismissed and the interim order dated 11October 2017 was vacated.

The petitioner had filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.-31504 of 2017 before the Supreme Court to assail the aforesaidorder dated 11 October 2017.

The order passed by the Supreme Court is reproduced below:

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is her submissionthat under Section 15(13) of the Uttar Pradesh (KshettraPanchayats and Zila Panchyats) Adhiniyam, 1961 Motion of NoConfidence for Pramukh could not have been called regardbeing had to the language employed in the said sub-section.Section 15(13) reads as follows :

"15(13) No notice of a motion under this section shall bereceived within [two years] of the assumption of office by aPramukh or [xxx] as the case may be."

On a scrutiny of the judgement of the High Court and thegrounds in the writ petition, we do not find such a ground wasever taken. Be that as it may, we permit the learned counsel totake such a ground before the High Court and file anapplication for review within two weeks hence. If such anapplication for review is filed, the same shall be dealt with onmerits squarely meeting the issue raised and decide the review.We would request the High Court to dispose of the reviewpetition on merits instead of throwing it at the threshold on theground of limitation. That apart, we also grant liberty to thepetitioner to challenge the main order as well as the orderpassed in review petition if he becomes unsuccessful in the The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of accordingly."

The petitioner had placed reliance upon Section 15(13) of theU.P. (Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat) Adhiniyam, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the Supreme Courtbut what was placed was the unamended provisions of Section15(13) of the Act to give impression that no notice of motioncould be received within two years of the assumption of theOffice by the Pramukh.

Section 15(13) of the Act was in fact amended by U.P. Act No.-44 of 2007 and the amended Section is reproduced below:

"15(13) No notice of a motion under this section shall bereceived within one year of the assumption of office by aPramukh or as the case may be."

The petitioner had been elected as a Pramukh on 6 February2016 as is clear from the certificate issued by the ElectionOfficer. The Motion of No Confidence filed against thepetitioner was received by the Collector on 28 September 2017.This is clearly beyond one year and, therefore, petitioner cannottake the benefit of Section 15(13) of the Act.

The petitioner had placed the unamended provisions of Section15(13) of the Act before the Supreme Court to contend that nonotice of a motion under Section 15(13) of the Act could bereceived within two years from the assumption of the office.Under the amended provisions of Section 15(13) of the Act, amotion cannot be received within one year only from theassumption of the Office.

The review application is, accordingly, rejected.

Order Date :- 10.1.2018A. V. Singh

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

(Jayant Banerji,J.)