Anjani Kumar and Rakesh Sharma, JJ - (1.) -These are two writ petitions, one filed by petitioner Hub Lal, who is elected Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Manda, Allahabad and another by Sanjay Singh and 42 other petitioners, who are the members of Kshettra Panchayat, Manda supporting the petitioner Hub Lal with the following prayers.
(2.) THE reliefs sought for by petitioner Hub Lal in Writ Petition No. 3266 of 2008 filed by Hub Lal are as under : "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring null and void the alleged meeting of no confidence dated 10.1.2008 held against the petitioner in the compound of Block Manda, district Allahabad together with its consequential effects ; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to act in accordance with law and if the meeting of no confidence is required to be held the same be conducted under the supervision and control of some judicial authority in accordance with law ; (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to work and discharge the duties as elected Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat Manda, district Allahabad in accordance with law ; (iv) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ; and (v) award cost of the petition to the petitioner throughout." The reliefs sought for in Writ Petition No. 4453 of 2008 filed by Sanjay Singh and 42 other petitioners are as under : "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing the Section 13 of U. P. Act No. 44 of 2007 ; II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.1.2008 (Annexure-13 to this writ petition) declaring the motion of 'no confidence' against the Block Pramukh to have been carried out ; III. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case ; IV. Award cost of this petition in favour of the petitioners." The brief facts of the case-in-hand as asserted by the petitioners in the writ petitions are that Kshettra Panchayat Manda is constituted under the provisins of U. P. Kshettra Panchayat Evam Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (U. P. Act No. 33 of 1961), In short "1961 Adhiniyam". The last election to constitute Kshettra Panchayat, Manda was held in the month of March, 2006 and the first meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat was held sometime in the month of April, 2006. The term of the members, including the Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat is five years. Petitioner Hub Lal in Writ Petition No. 3266 of 2008 is elected as Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat. There are 78 members of the Kshettra Panchayat, Manda when the provisions of sub-sections (11), (12) and (13) of Section 15 of the U. P. Kshettra Panchayat Evam Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 were amended by U. P. Ordinance No. 26 of 2007 which is now replaced by U. P. Act No. 44 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') substituting the word "more than one half" in place of "not less than two third" and also the word "one year" in place of "two years" in sub-sections (12) and (13) of Section 15 of 'the Act'. Petitioner Hub Lal who belongs to Scheduled Caste has contested the election of the Pramukh, which was reserved for the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste and was declared elected. When the petitioner was elected, the Samajwadi Party was in power in State. It is further asserted by petitioner Hub Lal that with the change of the Government in the State of U. P., the Bahujan Samaj Party came in power and form Government in U. P. and that is why in order to get their own men substituted in place of elected Pramukh and members who elected during the period when the Samajwadi Party was in power. The Ordinance being U. P. Ordinance No. 26 of 2007, which was later on replaced by the Act being U. P. Act No. 44 of 2008 is enacted. However, under the relevant provisions of Section 15, particularly sub-section (11) of Section 15 that provides procedure for motion of no confidence against the Pramukh has been amended. The amended provisions shall be referred to by us at the relevant place. It is not disputed that there are 78 members in the Kshettra Panchayat, Manda. It is further asserted that petitioner learnt that there is a whisper amongst the members belonging to the ruling Bahujan Samaj Party when they would be coming with a notice of no confidence motion against the Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Manda, i.e., petitioner Hub Lal. Since the petitioner was supported by more than two third members of Kshettra Panchayat, Manda, the petitioner was very confident that even if the motion of no confidence is brought against the petitioner, the motion will fail. It appears that a notice/application was filed addressed to the District Magistrate as contemplated under Section 15 of "1961 Adhiniyam". The intention of the aforesaid notice/application was with regard to motion of no confidence against the petitioner Hub Lal with the request to the District Magistrate to convene a meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence in accordance with law. The District Magistrate on receipt of the aforesaid notice/application, issued notices fixing 10th January, 2008 as the date for the meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat concerned for consideration of the motion of no confidence against the petitioner Hub Lal. The petitioner has alleged mala fides and the manner of exercise of power on the part of the respondents in convening of the meeting and also the appointment of the Presiding Officer and officials of the police force and the district authorities. The same will be dealt with by us at the relevant place. It is further asserted with regard to alleged kidnapping of father of one member of Kshettra Panchayat concerned, namely Shiv Kumar, which was published in the newspaper as well. The petitioners have also questioned the notice/application on the allegation that the aforesaid notice did not contain the signature of more than the one half of the total number of the Kshettra Panchayat, therefore, the District Magistrate was not correct in convening the meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence. In order to substantiate their statement, the petitioners have filed duly sworn affidavit of 45 members out of 78 members of the Kshettra Panchayat on 9th January, 2008 affixing their photographs on each affidavit to the effect that they have not signed the notice to convene the meeting nor did they participate in the meeting of no confidence motion held on 10th January, 2008. They further asserted that threats were being given by the district authorities that the motion for no confidence would be carried out even in the absence of the elected members of Kshettra Panchayat. These 45 members who are petitioners in connected writ petition, namely writ petition No. 4453 of 2008, have asserted that in fact they have never attended the meeting of Kshettra Panchayat held on 10th January, 2008. They further asserted that when they went to attend the meeting, to participate in the proceeding of no confidence motion, they were not permitted even to enter at the place of meeting. These affidavits, referred to above, were filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division and the District Magistrate, Allahabad, the true copies of some of the affidavits are annexed alongwith the writ petitions. The petitioners have also annexed the copy of the application, which they have made before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division and the District Magistrate, Allahabad on 10th January, 2008 when they were not allowed to participate in the meeting convened for consideration of the motion for no confidence. On the application moved by the petitioner, the District Magistrate directed deployment of the additional force and also directed for videography of the proceedings of the meeting of no confidence motion may be done. Consequence of the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate, the videography was conducted and a "C.D." (Compact Disc) of the aforesaid proceeding was produced by learned Additional Advocate General Sri Zafar Naiyar appearing on behalf of the respondents, which shall form part of the writ petition and is kept in a sealed cover. We have viewed the aforesaid "C.D." in the presence of pairokars and learned counsels for respective parties, including learned Additional Advocate General. At the request of petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General has also produced the original record of the proceedings of the meeting dated 10th January, 2008. It is asserted that the proceedings for the meeting dated 10th January, 2008 for the consideration of motion of no confidence is said to have been conducted and carried out against petitioner Hub Lal by majority of votes, as no member present in the said meeting cast his vote in favour of petitioner Hub Lal and against the motion and every member present in the meeting has voted for the motion of no confidence. The petitioners further asserted that they have brought to the notice of the authorities concerned even before 10th January, 2008 that the respondents are bent upon to carry out the motion against the petitioner by hook and crook and in support thereof they have filed several documents, copies whereof are annexed alongwith the writ petition. One of the member of Kshettra Panchayat supporting the petitioner, namely, Sri Virendra Pratap Singh has earlier approached this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1701 of 2008 with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to hold the meeting of no confidence scheduled for 10th January, 2008, but this writ petition was dismissed by this Court being premature. It is further asserted in paragraph 26 onwards of the writ petition that when the supporters of the petitioner Hub Lal went to the place of meeting on 10th January, 2008, they were restrained from entering into the meeting hall and were physically removed from the place, thus they were restrained from attending the meeting of no confidence, particularly by the S.H.O. of police station Manda R. N. Siddharth and other members of the police force deployed. It would not be out of place to mention, who had been transferred to other district and had taken over the charge on the place in the district where he was transferred, was brought back to P.S. Manda with the help of the ruling party. Sri Virendra Pratap Singh somehow get free from the clutches of supporters of the motion for no confidence who were gathered outside the meeting hall rushed to the office of the Chief Development Officer, Allahabad and filed his affidavit on that very day, i.e., 10th January, 2008 at about 12.00 a.m. stating all these incidents to this effect in detail. The petitioners therefore submitted that for the reasons stated in the memo of writ petition, the meeting dated 10th January, 2008 is no meeting in eyes of law as the same was firstly not convened in accordance with law as 45 members of the Kshettra Panchayat have filed affidavits duly sworn before the authority concerned to the effect that firstly they have not signed the notice of motion of no confidence and secondly they were physically man-handled and were not allowed to enter the place of meeting on 10th January, 2008 and in their place some other men/women impersonated and were allowed to participate cum cast their votes in the meeting dated 10th January, 2008. This has been done by number of persons, whereas they have never attended the meeting, therefore in these circumstances the motion cannot be said to have been legally passed as is alleged and declared by the Presiding Officer, who was in connivance with the respondents. It is further asserted that in fact the Presiding Officer appointed by District Magistrate, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned has not conducted the proceedings of the meeting of no confidence motion on 10th January, 2008, rather it was conducted by the so called observer appointed by District Magistrate and few members supporting the motion of no confidence. Thus, according to the petitioners it can very well be verified by way of "C.D." prepared under the direction of the District Magistrate and produced before this Court by learned Additional Advocate General. In this view of the matter, since 45 elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat were not allowed to participate in the meeting dated 10th January, 2008 for consideration of motion of no confidence were physically man-handled and restrained to enter in the place of meeting dated 10th January, 2008. In fact such persons have impersonated these members. The Presiding Officer has illegally declared that the coram is complete and that motion is carried out. It was therefore prayed that the resolution, if any, of the meeting dated 10th January, 2008 be quashed and the declaration be issued in favour of petitioner Hub Lal that he will continue as duly elected Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat, Manda. These allegations have been rebutted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the private respondents as well as by the State Government.
(3.) THE contention of learned standing counsel is that all the proceedings of the meeting of motion of no confidence were held in accordance with law. THE petitioner contended that this can be verified from the original record. It is apparent that after receipt of the notice which contained the alleged signature of the requisite number of members of Kshettra Panchayat, the District Magistrate has rightly issued the notice in exercising his power for the purpose of convening the meeting of no confidence motion as contemplated under Section 15 of "1961 Adhiniyam". THE respondents further asserted that all the allegations of the petitioners are not correct and therefore the same are denied. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the meeting was duly convened and it was completed in peaceful manner wherein all the 45 members present in the meeting have taken part for the motion of no confidence against the petitioner Hub Lal. It is therefore asserted that there is no illegality in the conduct of the meeting and declaration of the success of the motion of no confidence by the respondents, therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. As already observed from the "C.D.", which is prepared pursuant to the direction issued by the District Magistrate for videography of the proceedings of the meeting, which we have viewed in the presence of the pairokars and learned counsels for respective parties, including learned Additional Advocate General Sri Zafar Naiyar in Chambers and after viewing the "C.D." the same was directed to be kept in a seal cover and shall form part of the record. During the course of viewing the "C.D.", large number of irregularities were pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners as per instructions by their pairokars. We have seen the "C.D." and found as under : (a) THE Presiding Officer, namely Sri B. L. Saroj was sitting mum and the proceedings of the meeting are conducted by Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, the observer appointed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad who in fact ought not have performed the job or role of the Presiding Officer and he could only watch the proceedings and submit its report. (b) THE number of women members, who were present in the meeting were all having seen in the videography and had not removed their veil (Pardah) during the process of the meeting and casting of their votes. THEse women members were said to be women impersonating the elected women members, who while participating in the regular meeting of Kshettra Panchayat have never worn veil (Pardah) but in the meeting in question are seen wearing veil (Pardah) during the videography while meeting was going on. We have carefully watched the "C.D." in the light of the aforesaid suggestions that these women who must be Ten in numbers have never removed veil (Pardah) during videography and therefore to us it appears that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners are correct, as no reply/explanation is given to the observation made above that these women are not the elected women members of Kshettra Panchayat. They never lifted their veil (Pardah) during the course of the proceedings of the meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence. To this, there was no answer from the respondents, including the learned Additional Advocate General.;