SMT. KAVITAversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

656                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    10 S.C.R. 656              [2018] 10 S.C.R.


A                                 SMT. KAVITA
                                         v.
                      THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
                       THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.
B                        (Civil Appeal No. 2623 of 2018)
                             SEPTEMBER 05, 2018
             [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
                        DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
             U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam,
C
      1961– s.15– Appellant, Block Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, was
      issued no confidence motion notice by the Collector – Writ petition
      filed by appellant, dismissed – Plea of appellant that there was no
      clear 15 days’ notice as contemplated u/sub-s.(3) of s.15 – Held:
      Rejected – Appellant avoided to receive the notice personally and
D     hence it was sent by post – Appellant failed to produce any material
      on record to show that the notice was dispatched after the 17 th day
      (the day fixed for meeting, as per the notice) – Further, on appellant’s
      own admission in the writ petition, it was evident that the objection
      to the said notice relating to signatures of few members who had
      signed the notice was taken on the 16th day itself – Another ground
E
      urged by the appellant that the Collector ought to have enquired
      into the validity of the signatures of members, who subsequently
      filed affidavits stating that their signatures were obtained by fraud,
      was also justly negatived by the High Court – Impugned judgment
      does not warrant any interference.
F
            Dismissing the appeal, the Court
             HELD: 1.1 The appellant had refused/avoided to receive
      the notice personally and hence it was sent by post. The High
      Court also found that the appellant had failed to produce any
      material on record to show that the notice was dispatched after
G     the 17th day and that on the appellant’s own admission in the writ
      petition, it was evident that the objection to the said notice was
      taken on the 16th day itself relating to signatures of few members
      who had signed the notice. This was a strong circumstance to
      belie the tall claim of the appellant. Taking an overall view of the
H
                                       656
            KAVITA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                           657


matter, the High Court noted that the issue involved a disputed        A
question of fact and could not be decided in writ jurisdiction. At
the same time, the High Court took note of the fact that the
meeting was duly conducted as scheduled in terms of the stated
notice and the no confidence motion was passed by a majority,
against the appellant. There is no reason to depart from the
                                                                       B
conclusion recorded by the High Court for rejecting the challenge
that no clear 15 days’ notice was given as claimed by the appellant.
Accordingly, this contention must fail and is rejected.
[Para 5] [657-A-D]
      1.2 Since the stated notice has already been acted upon
and the no confidence motion has been passed against the               C
appellant by majority, no further enquiry into the grounds urged
by the appellant is warranted. Even the first ground urged by the
appellant that the Collector ought to have enquired into the
validity of the signatures of 10 members, who subsequently filed
affidavits stating that their signatures were obtained by fraud,       D
was justly negatived by the High Court. [Paras 6, 8] [661-G-H;
662-A]
      Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of U.P. and Ors. AIR 2015
      All. 65 ; Mathura Prasad Tewari v. Assistant District
      Panchayat Officer, Faizabad 1966 ALJ 612 –                       E
      approved.
      Kiran Pal Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
      2018 (7) SCALE 605 – relied on.
                       Case Law Reference
AIR 2015 All. 65               approved               Para 6           F
1966 ALJ 612                   approved               Para 6
2018 (7) SCALE 605             relied on              Para 7
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2623
of 2018.                                                               G
      From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No. 27912 of 2017.
      Aditya Ranjan, Md. Shahid Anwar, Aamir Naseem, Gyanendra
Singh, Deepak Goel, Advs. for the appearing parties.
                                                                       H
658             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 10 S.C.R.


A           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

             A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against
      the judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2017, passed by the High Court
      of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No.27912 of 2017, whereby the
      Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the
B     appellant for challenging the no confidence motion notice issued under
      Section 15 of The U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats
      Adhiniyam, 1961 (for short, “the Act”).

              2. A Notice was issued by the Collector/District Magistrate,
      Bulandshahar, U.P., dated 15th June, 2017 on the basis of requisition
C
      given by 32 members out of 59 members of the Kshettra Panchayat,
      expressing no confidence against the appellant who was the Block
      Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Lakhawati at the relevant time. The
      notice had fixed the meeting date as 1st July, 2017 i.e. on the 17th day
      from the date of notice. The appellant challenged the said notice by way
D     of a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad on two counts.
      First, that the Collector had failed to hold an enquiry into the validity of
      signatures of 10 members, who subsequently filed affidavits stating that
      their signatures were obtained by fraud. Second, that there was no clear
      15 days’ notice as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 15 of
      the Act. The Division Bench, after considering the factual position
E
      emanating from the record before it, negatived both the contentions and
      eventually dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant vide the
      impugned judgment.

             3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court
F     raising the self-same two grounds urged before the High Court, for
      challenging the validity of the no confidence motion notice dated
      15th June, 2017. The respondents have supported the reasons recorded
      by the High Court and would contend that both the grounds urged by the
      appellant are devoid of any merit.

G           4. We have heard Mr. Aditya Ranjan, learned counsel for the
      appellant.

            5. Reverting to the second contention that there was no clear 15
      days’ notice, this aspect has been considered by the High Court on the

H
                 KAVITA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                             659
                      [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

basis of record before it, revealing that the appellant had refused/avoided   A
to receive the notice personally and hence it was sent by post. The High
Court also found that the appellant had failed to produce any material on
record to show that the notice was dispatched after the 17th day and
that on the appellant’s own admission in the writ petition, it was evident
that the objection to the said notice was taken on the 16th day itself
                                                                              B
relating to signatures of few members who had signed the notice. This
was a strong circumstance to belie the tall claim of the appellant. Taking
an overall view of the matter, the High Court noted that the issue
involved a disputed question of fact and could not be decided in writ
jurisdiction. At the same time, the High Court took note of the fact that
the meeting was duly conducted as scheduled in terms of the stated            C
notice and the no confidence motion was passed by a majority, against
the appellant. We, therefore, find no reason to depart from the
conclusion recorded by the High Court for rejecting the challenge that
no clear 15 days’ notice was given as claimed by the appellant.
Accordingly, this contention must fail and is rejected.
                                                                              D
       6. As aforesaid, since the stated notice has already been acted
upon and the no confidence motion has been passed against the
appellant by majority, no further enquiry into the grounds urged by the
appellant is warranted. Be that as it may, even the first ground urged by
the appellant has been justly negatived by the High Court following the       E
exposition of the Full Bench of the same High Court in Smt. Sheela
Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.,1 which decision adverts to the dictum
of another Full Bench decision of the same High Court in Mathura
Prasad Tewari Vs. Assistant District Panchayat Officer, Faizabad.2
In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench has reproduced
paragraph 23 of the Full Bench decision in Sheela Devi, (supra) which         F
reads thus:

         “23. For these reasons, we have come to the conclusion that where
         a notice is delivered to the Collector under sub-section (2) of
         Section 15, the Collector has the discretion to determine whether
         the notice fulfills the essential requirements of a valid notice     G
         under sub-section (2). However, consistent with the stipulation of
         time enunciated in sub-section (3) of Section 15 of convening a
         meeting no later than thirty days from the date of delivery of the
1
    AIR 2015 All. 65
2
    1966 ALJ 612                                                              H
660      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 10 S.C.R.


A     notice and of issuing at least a fifteen days’ notice to all the elected
      members of the Kshettra Panchayat, it is not open to the
      Collector to launch a detailed evidentiary enquiry into the
      validity of the signatures which are appended to the notice.
      Where a finding in regard to the validity of the signatures
      can only be arrived at in an enquiry on the basis of
B
      evidence adduced in the course of an evidentiary hearing
      at a full-fledged trial, such an enquiry would be outside the
      purview of Section 15. The Collector does not exercise the
      powers of a Court upon receipt of a notice and when he
      transmits the notice for consideration at a meeting of the
C     elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat. Hence, it would
      not be open to the Collector to resolve or enter findings of fact on
      seriously disputed questions such as forgery, fraud and coercion.
      However, consistent with the law which has been laid down by
      the Full Bench in Mathura Prasad Tewari’s case, it is open to the
      Collector, having due regard to the nature and ambit of his
D
      jurisdiction under sub-section (3) to determine as to whether the
      requirements of a valid notice under sub-section (2) of Section 15
      have been fulfilled. The proceeding before the Collector under
      sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act of 1961 is more in the
      nature of a summary proceeding. The Collector for the purpose
E     of Section 15, does not have the trappings of a Court exercising
      jurisdiction on the basis of evidence adduced at a trial of a judicial
      proceeding. Whether in a given case, the Collector has
      transgressed the limits of his own jurisdiction is a matter which
      can be addressed in a challenge under Article 226 of the
      Constitution. We clarify that we have not provided an exhaustive
F
      enumeration or list of circumstances in which the Collector can
      determine the validity of the notice furnished under sub-section
      (2) in each case and it is for the Collector in the first instance and
      for the Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review, if it is
      moved, to determine as to whether the limits on the power of the
G     Collector have been duly observed.”

                                                     (emphasis supplied)



H
                KAVITA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                               661
                     [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

      7. Notably, this Court in the case of Kiran Pal Singh Vs. The            A
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (in C.A. No.2622 of 2018 decided on
17th May, 2018)3 has had an occasion to explicate on the purport of
Section 15(2) of the Act. In paragraph 15 of this decision the Court
observed thus:
         “15. To appreciate the controversy, we have to understand the         B
         scheme engrafted under Section 15 of the Act. Subsection (2) of
         Section 15 provides that a written notice of intention to make the
         motion in such form as may be prescribed, signed by at least half
         of the total number of elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat
         for the time being together with a copy of the proposed motion,
                                                                               C
         shall be delivered in person, by any one of the members signing
         the notice, to the Collector having jurisdiction over the Kshettra
         Panchayat. Subsection (3) requires the Collector to convene a
         meeting. At this stage, the jurisdiction that the Collector
         has is only to scan the notice to find out whether it fulfills
         the essential requirements of a valid notice. The exercise            D
         of the said discretion, as we perceive, has to be summary
         in nature. There cannot be a detailed inquiry with regard to
         the validity of the notice. We are obliged to think so as
         subsection (3) mandates that a meeting has to be convened not
         later than 30 days from the date of delivery of the notice and
                                                                               E
         further there should be at least 15 days’ notice to be given to all
         the elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat. The
         Collector, therefore, should not assume power to enter into
         an arena or record a finding on seriously disputed
         questions of facts relating to fraud, undue influence or
         coercion. His only duty is to determine whether there has             F
         been a valid notice as contemplated under Sub section (2)
         of Section 15. His delving deep to conduct a regular
         inquiry would frustrate the provision. He must function
         within his own limits and leave the rest to be determined in
         the meeting.”
                                                                               G
                                                      (emphasis supplied)
      8. In view of the above, the ground urged by the appellant that the
Collector ought to have enquired into the validity of the signatures of 10
3
    2018 (7) SCALE 605
                                                                               H
662            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 10 S.C.R.


A     members, who subsequently filed affidavits stating that their signatures
      were obtained by fraud, had been justly negatived by the High Court.
      Hence, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. As
      no other contention has been urged, the appeal must fail.
            9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
B

      Divya Pandey                                             Appeal dismissed.




C




D




E




F




G




H