B. S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) -This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.8.2003 passed by respondent No. 2 declaring that no-confidence motion against the respondent No. 3-Block Pramukh, Kshetra Panchayat Dhanapur, district Chandauli could not be carried out.
(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the election of Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat Dhanapur, district Chandauli, was held in March, 2001. Notice of no-confidence motion was signed by 57 members out of total 77 elected members and was presented before the District Collector, Chandauli, on 14.7.2003. The notice was issued to all the members by the District Collector on 28.7.2003 for holding a meeting for considering the no-confidence motion on 13.8.2003 at 10.00 a.m. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sakaldeeha, respondent No. 2 was appointed as the Presiding Officer. Meeting was held on 13th August, 2003. After debate the motion was put to vote. The meeting was attended by 41 members, out of which 37 elected members participated in the voting and 34 out of them voted in favour of the motion. The Presiding Officer-respondent No. 2 declared that meeting failed to carryout the motion as 2/3rd of the total elected members had not voted in its favour. Hence, this petition. Shri V. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the decision taken by respondent No. 2 is illegal, perverse and in contravention of the provisions of Section 15 (11) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, (hereinafter called the 'Act 1961') and Rule 9 of the Kshetra Samiti Conduct Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called the 'Rules 1962'). The combined reading of both provide that business of Kshetra Samiti could be carried out by at least half of the total number of members and any other ordinary business may be carried out by 1/3rd of the such members, therefore, declaring the result of the no-confidence motion on the basis that 2/3rd of the total members have not voted in favour of the motion, is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned standing counsel, Shri C. K. Rai and Shri N. K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 have vehemently opposed the submission made by Shri V. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitting that the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1962, is made applicable when ordinary business of the Samiti is conducted and not applicable when the no-confidence motion against the Block Pramukh is entertained. More so, the provisions of the Act have been amended from time to time and 2/3rd of total number of the members is required to carry out the no-confidence motion. The rules cannot override the statutory provisions of the Act and, therefore, the petition is liable to be rejected.
(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Section 15 (11) of the Act, 1961 required that to carry out a motion, the support of more than half of the total number of the members of the Kshetra Panchayats was required. The Act was amended vide U. P. Act No. 9 of 1994 providing that motion can be carried out with the support of more than 1/2 of the total number of elected members of the Kshetra Samiti. Again, vide Act No. 20 of 1998, the provisions of Section 15 (11) were amended and the words "more than half" were substituted by the words "not less than 2/3rd". Thus, the provision, as it exists today, read as under : "If the motion is carried with support of not less than 2/3rd of the total number of elected members of the Kshetra Panchayat for the time being................";