R. R. K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the learned counsel are agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of the notice of no confidence motion and also the result of the proceedings of no confidence motion held on 7th April, 1992. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that on 9/10th March, 1992 a notice of no confidence motion against petitioner was given to respondent no. 3 as contemplated under section 28 of Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Samities and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 (U. P, Act No. 3 of 1961), hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1961'. On the basis of the aforesaid notice the respondent no. 3 fixed 7th April, 1992 as the date of meeting of the members of Zila Parishad for consideration of no confidence motion. The notices were issued to the members of the Zila Parishad as required under section 28 of the Act of 12th March, 1992. However, controversy arose with regard to five those members who were chosen and nominated by the State Government under section 18 of the Act. Such nominated members have been arrayed as respondents no. 10 to 24 in three different sets according to the period they continued as nominated members of the Zila Parishad. It appears that intially respondents no, 10 to 14 were nominated as members. However by the Government Order dated 16th January, 1990 they were removed and in their place respondents no. 15 to 19 were nominated as members. The State Government by order dated 25th January, 1992 nominated respondents no. 20 to 24 as members replacing respondent no. 15 to 19. However the Government Order dated 25th January, 1992 appointing respondents no. 20 to 24 as members could be communicated to respondent no. 3 on 25th March, 1992 and the oath was administered to them on 28th March, 1992. The effect of this delay in communication was that respondent II set continued to be members of the Zila Parishad upto 27the March* 1992 as provided in clause (c) of section 20 sub-section (4) of tha Act as inserted by U. P. Act No. 20 of 1990. It shall be appropriate at this stage to reproduce cl. (c) to section 20 of sub-section (4) of the Act which runs as under : "Section 20 (4) (a) ...................... (b) ...................... (c) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the term of office of a person chosen to be a member under clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 18, whether before or after January 20, 1990. shall be one year, but he shall continue to hold office till another person is chosen to be a member in his place. Explanation-For removal of doubts; it is hereby declared that the choice of a person to be a member under clause (v) of sub-section (1) of section 18 may be cancelled by the State Government at any time before the constitution or reconstitution of the Zila Parishad under section 17." The effect of the aforesaid change was that on the date the notice of intention to move motion of no confidence was moved and on the date when the notices were issued by respondent no, 3 fixing 7th April, 1992 as date for consideration of no confidence motion, the members shown as respondents second set cere continuing the members, as the Government Order dated 25th January. 1992 nominating respondents III set was not communicated. However, on 28th March, 1992, when respondents mentioned as III set were administered oath of office, they replaced respondents II set and became members eligible to participate in the meeting of the members of the Zila Parishad Scheduled for 7th April, 1992 for consideration of no confidence motion. Consequently, respondent no. 3 issued notices for members known as respondents no 20 to 24 after 28th March, 1992, Section 28 (3) (ii) of the Act says that the notice to the members for attending the meeting of the Zila Parishad for consideration of the no confidence motion should not be less than 15 days notice, In the facts: of the case as disclosed above, as members of respondents HI set were administered oath on 28th March, 1992 they could not be given 15 days notice as required under section 28 (3) (ii) of the Art. On 7th April, 1992 the meeting of the members of the Zila Parishad took place as scheduled which was attended by 26 members. The meeting was presided over by Sri S. K. Ratauri,, Special Judge, Rampur and after considering the motion of no confidence the same was put to vote. Out of 26, 24 votes were cast in favour of the motion and two against it. The Presiding Officer thus declared the motion as carried out. This writ petition was filed in this Court on 5th April, 1992 on which date a Division Bench of this Court granted time to parties to exchange affidavits and also required petitioner to serve unserved respondents. However as do interim order was granted., the motion or no confidence was carried against petitioner. He filed an application on 25th May, 1992 for necessary amendments in the writ petitionr and for incorporating the subsequent events and also claiming relief for quashing the result of motion of no confidence dated 7th April, 1992 and for further relief not to Interfere in his functioning as Zila Parishad Adhyakash. This application was allowed on 27th November, 1992. An impleadment: application was also moved by petitioner for impleading respondents no. 10 to 24 as parties in the writ petition which was also allowed by this Court by order dated 29th October, 1993 and the notices were required to be served on the newly impleaded respondents. It appears that notices were sent through office and petitioner was also required to serve respondents personally. An affidavit of service dated 21st January, 1994 was filed by petitioner. Registered notices were also sent to the respondents returnable oa 8th November, 1993. However as per office report dated 19th January, 1994 neither the acknowledgement nor undelivered covers have been received back after service. In the aforesaid circumstances, the service of respondents no. 10 to 24 is deemed sufficient. None of them has put in appearance In response to the notices issued to them.
(3.) THE learned counsel for petitioner has challenged the legality of the notice and result of no confidence motion on various grounds which are mentioned below ; (i) THE provisions of section 28 (3) (ii) of the Act requires that the members of the Zila Parishad should be given not less than 15 days notice of the meeting. However in the present case as respondents no. 20 to 24 members of the Zila Parishad were given notices on 31st March, 1994, the mandatory provisions relating to notices have been violated and it has vitiated the entire proceedings. For this reliance has been placed by the learned counsel in a case of Division Bench of this Court Amir Khalid v. State of U. P., 1994 (1) UP LB EC 45 and Khurshid Hussain v. District Magistrate and Collector, Bareilly, 1992! (1) AWC 208. (ii) THE notice of vote of no confidence served by respondent no. 3 was not in prescribed form as provided in Rules relating to the form for no confidence in Adyaksh 1962 and it vitated the entire proceedings. Reliance has been placed in case of Ram Nath Trfpathi v. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, 1992 (2) UP LB EC 1181. (iii) THE notice served on the petitioner did not bear any date or signature of the authority issuing the name nor any date was mentioned in the copy of the motion annexed there to THE notice did not accompany the motion of no confidence. Under Law, it is notice which is required to be signed by the members and not the motion. THE signatures on the motion are wholly Illegible. Thus there was no compliance of the provisions of the rules mentioned above. (iv) Respondents no. 15 to 19 (II set) were legally members of the Zila Parishad and were duly served with the notice to participate in the meeting scheduled for 7th April, 1994. But they were not allowed to participate in spite of the interim order dated 2nd April, 1992 passed by this Court. Thus the proceedings were held In violation of the order of this Court and are liable to be quashed. THE notice issued to such members to participate in the meeting was neither withdrawn nor cancelled. (v) Respondents 20 to 24 (III sat) though were nominated on 25th November. 1992 but their nominations have not been published in the official gazette and in absence of such publication they could not be legally treated as members of the Zila Parishad and respondents committed a serious illegality in serving a notice on them to participate and at the same time not permitting respondents (II set) to participate In the meeting. THE proceedings are liable to be quashed on this ground alone. (vi) On the objections being raised by respondents (II set) and on production of the Interim order of this Court dated 2nd April, 1992 the Presiding Officer adjourned the meeting and asked them to obtain necessary orders from Collector. THE meeting was adjourned to allow respondents no. 15 to 19 to obtain permission. It is claimed that as the meeting was adjourned, fresh notices or ten days ought to have been given by respondent no 3 under section 28 (4-B) of the Act and the result of the proceedings announced by the Presiding Officer is illegal and liable to be quashed. (vii) Lastlv, it has also been submitted that religious and communal feelings were incited and exploited to get the motion of no confidence carried against petitioner and for this reason also the entire proceedings stood vitiated and are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the 'other hand resisting the claim of petitioner, has made the following submissions :- 159-Rep.-1994 (i) The motion of no confidence moved against petitioner was signed only by Sri Trilochan Singh, respondent no. 16 from II set. On 7th April, 1992 at the time of consideration of no confidence motion only Jagan Singh, respondent no. 24 put in appearance and participated. Hence the question raised on behalf of petitioner about participation and non-participation of the respondents shown in II and III set is of no consequence and did not effect the result of the proceedings of no confidence motion. (ii) The respondents III set took oath on 28th March, 1992 and it was not possible to serve 15 days clear notice on them as required under section 28 (3) (ii). However a clear 15 days notice was already given to the respondents II set well within time and no fresh notice was required and so far as the respondents III set is concerned it was an act of courtesy or caution that they were also given a fresh notice on 31st March, 1992. (iii) As respondents 15 to 19 (II net) were already given notice and the respondents 20 to 24 (III set) stepped in their shoes as successors, no fresh notice was required and the notice already issued on 2nd March, 1992 was sufficient and legal and the proceeding? and the result does not suffer from any legal infirmity. (v) Interim order passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court dated 2nd April, 1992 was to the effect that the order dated 27th March, 1992 by which respondents (III set) were required to take oath on 28th March, 1992 was stayed. However as the oath was already administered on 28th March, 1992 i.e. much before the interim order dated 2nd April 1992 was passed by this Court, the respondents (III set) were rightly served the notices and were legally eligible to participate. The interim order dated 2nd April, 1992 could not have any adverse effect on the proceedings held on 7th April or the result thereof. (vi) The notification nominating respondents (HI set) was issued on 25th January, 1992 which is on record. However the second notification was issued on 6th April, 1992 on account of the delayed communication. However, it has no effect on the proceedings. (vii) There are total 40 members of the Zila Parishad including members nominated by the State Government., Out of 40, 24 members cast vote in support of no confidence motion and only two votes were cast against. Out of respondents (III set) only Jagan Singh, respondent no. 24 participated in the meeting and voted against the motion of no confidence. No other members attended the meeting. In view of this fact the result of the proceedings is not affected in any manner and it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.;