Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was the Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat, Bijnor. At the instance of the members of the Zila Panchayat the Collector Bijnor convened a meeting fixing 29.5.2008 for consideration of a no confidence motion against her. It is alleged that out of a total of 48 members of the Zila Panchayat 34 members attended the meeting. THE motion was carried through by 32 persons voting in favour of the motion one against the motion and there was one invalid vote.
(2.) AFTER the amendment of Section 28 of the U. P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam in 2004 a motion of no confidence against the Adhyaksha can be carried through by half the total number of the members of the Zila Panchayat. Before the amendment it could only be passed by 2/3 of the total number of the members of the Zila Panchayat. The petitioner in whose case the motion was passed after the amendment of Section 28, challenged the amendment in Writ Petition No.4549 of 2008 in the Lucknow Bench of this Court. That petition has been transferred for hearing at Allahabad and is also listed before us today. In that case the court granted an interim order dated 23.5.2008 that the no confidence shall not be given effect to, if it is not passed by a majority of 2/3rd or more. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the resolution of the Zila Panchayat passing the no confidence motion against her. We have heard Sri K.N. Tripathi, learned senior Advocate assisted by S/Sri A.K. Gupta and Mukesh Prasad for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General Sri Zafar Naiyar on behalf of the State assisted by Sri M.C. Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.C. Dwivedi and Sri Shailendra Kumar Upadhyay for the respondent no.5 Smt. Gayatri Devi. Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner pressed four points before us. His first submission is that under sub section (8) of Section 28 the debate upon the motion of no confidence shall automatically terminate after two hours from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting but in this case the debate went on beyond this time and therefore all subsequent proceedings after the time of two hours was over including the voting which took place thereafter were invalid. According to him the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting was 11 AM and therefore the meeting could not have continued beyond 1 PM. In the notice for convening the meeting issued by the Collector the date and time mentioned was 29.5.08 at 11 AM. Sri Tripathi drew our attention to the report of the Presiding Officer, the Additional District Judge Sri S.S. Mishra that the discussions in the meeting were continuing at 1.10 P.M. when one of the members Smt. Sudha was brought on stretcher. She gave her application at 1.10 P.M. and she was allowed to participate in the meeting. From the report of the Presiding Officer dated 29.5.2008 it is clear that the motion was read out and the meeting was declared to be open for debate at 11.15 AM. If it is taken that the meeting commenced at 11.15 A.M. the discussion could continue till 1.15 P.M. In the context of these facts Sri Tripathi relied upon Sub-Section 8 of Section 28 of the Act, which reads as follows;- "(8) Such debate shall automatically terminate on the expiration of two hours from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting, if it is not concluded earlier. On the conclusion of the debate or on the expiration of the said period of two hours, whichever is earlier, the motion shall be put to vote (which shall be held in the prescribed manner by secret ballot}."
(3.) THE submission of Sri K.N.Tripathi is that the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting contemplated in Sub-section 8 would be the time indicated in the notice given by the Collector. In our opinion the contention is not well founded. In the notice for convening meeting the time at which the members are required to be present for attending the meeting is fixed by the Collector. A distinction has to be drawn between the time appointed for convening the meeting and the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting. Clause (i) of Sub-Section (3) of Section 28 deals with convening of the meeting for the consideration of the motion and it is in that context that a date and time is appointed by the Collector. Clause (i) of Sub-section 3 of Section 28 is quoted below; "3 (i) convene a meeting of the Zila Panchayat for the consideration of the motion at the office of the Zila Panchayat on a date appointed by him, which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) was delivered to him" The expression used by the Legislature in sub section (8) is 'the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting'. The commencement of the meeting is a stage subsequent to the convening of the meeting. The distinction between convening of the meeting and its commencement is also evident from the language of sub-Section 6 of Section 28.;