Abdul Moin, J. - (1.) Heard Sri L.P. Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Anupam Mehrotra along with Sri Hamanshu Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the caveator.
(2.) By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 08.02.2018 issued by the Opp-party No.2, the true copy of which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. (b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Notice dated 05.02.2018 having been sent to the petitioner containing the impugned order of the District Magistrate dated 08.02.2018, the true copy of which is contained as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. (c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opp. Parties not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the petitioner as Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat-Kasmanda, District Sitapur pursuant to the impugned 08.02.2018 issued by the Opp-party No.2 as also the impugned notice dated 05.02.2018 contained as Annexure No. and 2 respectively to the writ petition. (d) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. (e) To issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature and manner which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
(3.) The case set forth by the petitioner is that the petitioner contested the election of Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat Kasmanda, District Sitapur in the year 2015 in which she was declared elected and has been performing her duties since then. The petitioner alleges that there have been attempts to "de-establish" her from her office by pressurising the members of the Kshetra Panchayat Kasmanda, District Sitapur and in this regard the impugned order dated 8.2.2018 has been issued by the Collector, Sitapur calling for a meeting of the Kshetra Panchayat, Kasmanda, District Sitapur to consider the motion of no confidence brought against the petitioner which is alleged to be in violation of Section 15 of the U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act). The petitioner alleges to have received the order dated 8.2.2018 through registered post which has been dispatched on 9.2.2018. The petitioner has also received a copy of the notice dated 5.2.2018 along with notice of no confidence dated Nil. The order dated 8.2.2018 is Annexure-1 to the writ petition while notice dated 5.2.2018 is Annexure-2 to the writ petition which is accompanied by the written notice of intention to make the motion dated 5.2.2018 and the copy of the proposed motion dated Nil. The petitioner contends that the notice for no confidence has been signed by persons who are not even the members of the Kshetra Panchayat. In this regard she has invited the attention of the Court towards a person signing the notice in the name of Shamim Bano. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Collector, Sitapur did not apply his mind while issuing the impugned order dated 8.2.2018 inasmuch as out of 102 members of the Kshetra Panchayat, 68 members have given the notice of no confidence but the serial numbers of the persons signing it do not correspond, apart from the fact that out of the 68 members who are alleged to have signed the motion of no confidence, 29 have given their affidavits denying the same. Copies of the said affidavits are alleged to have been given and served upon the Collector, Sitapur by the petitioner on 17.2.2018 and the copies thereof have been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Thus, the petitioner contends that the Collector, Sitapur should have applied his mind while passing the order dated 8.2.2018 inasmuch as once there was 102 members of which 68 have allegedly signed the notice and subsequently on 17.2.2018, 29 members have given the affidavits denying their signatures then the Collector should have held an inquiry into the matter instead of mechanically issuing the order dated 8.2.2018. In support of the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi vs. State of U.P. and others reported in, 2015 2 UPLBEC 1176.;