1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5205-DB

A.F.R.

Reserved on 9.12.2024

Delivered on 10.01.2025

Court No. - 3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33495 of 2024

Petitioner :- Vikash Kumar And Another

Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Singh,Sr. Advocate

Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjeev Singh,C.S.C.

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, District-Kushinagar, 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

2

U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961

1

.

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.

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

1Act, 1961

3

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

sub-section (2) of Section 15 is delivered to him.

4

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 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

22015 (2) ADJ 325

32020 (3) ADJ 398

5

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 others

4

. 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 others

5

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

4Writ-C No.11485 of 2024, decided on 10.7.2024

5AIR 2018 SC 4143

6

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. 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

7

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

sub-section (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 sub-section (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

8

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 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

62014 (4) ADJ 3

9

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 sub-

sections.

(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

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 sub-section, 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

10

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

आख्या) 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

11

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 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

12

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

13

coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arti vs. State of U.P.

7

has held that though the relevant 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

72017 (7) ADJ 30 (DB)

14

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,

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

15

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 non-confidence 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

16

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.

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

17

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.

Order Date :-10.01.2025

Aditya Tripathi/SK