- (1.) Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Bhanot for the petitioner, Sri S.A. Sharma for the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 and Sri M.S. Peepersenia, learned Standing Counsel. The petition while being entertained, the following order was passed on 30.5.2014; "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The issue involved for adjudication in this petition is whether respondent No. 2, District Magistrate can exercise the discretion for examining the genuineness or veracity of the signatures endorsed by the members while proceeding to entertain a notice for tabling a 'No Confidence Motion'. Shri K.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ajay Bhanot appearing for the petitioner submitted that the noticing conflict in the decisions of the various Division Bench judgments of this Court on this issue and the Full Bench judgment in the case of Mathura Prasad Tiwari v. Assistant District Panchayat Officer, Faizabad and another, 1967 RD 17 and finding that either the ratio of the Full Bench judgment was not considered or the same escaped the notice of the Division Bench, the issue has been referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice under Chapter V Rule 6 of the High Court Rules for constituting a larger Bench to answer the question in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2014 1 ADJ 717. Shri Sashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents states that ratio of the Full Bench judgment in the case of Mathura Prasad Tiwari is binding. Be that as it may, since the Division Bench of coordinate jurisdiction has referred the question for adjudication by a larger Bench, the judicial discipline demands that the answer to be given by the larger Bench be awaited. Put up as fresh on 25th July, 2014. In the meantime, the parties may exchange their affidavits. Considering the facts and circumstances, the meeting of 'No Confidence' may be held as and when scheduled, but till the next date of listing, result of the meeting shall not be declared.''
(2.) Two counter-affidavits have been filed one on behalf of the State and the other on behalf of private respondents.
(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State in paragraph 19, it has been categorically stated that out of a total of 17 members as admitted to the petitioner in paragraph 22, 16 members were present and none of the members have denied their signatures or their participation in the no confidence motion. The same fact has been asserted by the private respondents in paragraph 14 of their counter-affidavit.;