USHA BHARTI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review petition arises out of the judgment and order dated 05.02.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.9654 (MB) of 2012, filed by the review petitioner which was dismissed in view of the Enquiry report submitted by the learned Additional District Judge, Sitapur, with findings that out total 37 Members, who were alleged to have signed the resolution for bringing ''No Confidence', signatures of 31 Members are genuine.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to filing of this review petition are that the petitioner was duly elected as Member of the Zila Panchayat, Sitapur, along with 61 other Members and in terms of Article 243C (5) (b) and Section 19 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat, 1961, (for short, ''the Act of 1961') was also elected as the Chairperson/Adhyaksh of the Zila Panchayat from amongst the elected Members.

(3.) IN the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the review petition filed on affidavit sworn by respondent no.5, Smt. Madhu Gupta, she has asserted that during the course of hearing of the writ petition both at the interim as well as final stage no any submission was made by learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the constitutional validity of Section 28 of the Act of 1961 or the import of Article 243N of the Constitution of India. Even no request was made on behalf of the petitioner for providing opportunity to file objection to the enquiry report submitted by the learned Additional District Judge. Rather, learned senior counsel for the petitioner made a categorical statement at bar that in view of the fact that the report had been submitted by a senior judicial officer, there is no occasion to file any objection thereto. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Preliminary Objection on affidavit on reproduction read as: