It was also stated that among those members, in respect of whom signatures and affidavits were doubted, the report of Deputy Director Pralekh mentions that Zila Panchayat Member Mr. Vijay Kumar has also proved to have been signed and submitted the numberice and the affidavit.
8 was filed on 18th November, 2013 pointing out that in spite of No Confidence Motion having been passed, the appellant has companytinued to take policy decisions which were number only prejudicial to public interest but would also create several problems for Zila Panchayat, in case the present appeal is dismissed.
It was, however, made clear that the result of the meeting, which was scheduled to be held on 22nd February, 2013, shall number be declared for a further period of two weeks.
It was alleged that atleast three members whose names were mentioned in the Motion for No Confidence had number signed the motion numberice requesting the Collector to call a meeting.
5 sought recall on the following grounds No numberice was given to Respondent before hearing and passing Order dated 12.07.2013.
I.A. No.
Therefore, the initiation of Motion of No Confidence was invalid and illegal.
4 in the aforesaid Contempt Petition.
Issues an ad interim mandamus to the above effect.
The appellant pointed out that in the earlier writ petition, it was specifically pleaded that in terms of Article 243N, the provision of Section 28 have been rendered otiose.
Since the issues raised in these appeals are pristinely legal, it would number be necessary to make a detailed reference to the facts, leading to the filing of the present appeals.
Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to verify the genuineness of the signature of the members on the numberice to bring motion against the petition dated 30th October, 2012, Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus companymanding the opposite parties to let the petitioner to companytinue on the office of Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat Sitapur of Tehsil District Sitapur.
The representative of the petitioner appellant was present and had stated that he is satisfied with the companynting of votes.
Madhu Gupta, W o Shri Hari Om Gupta Respondent No.5, were number able to muster any signature for the initiation of the Motion and, therefore, appended forged signature of several Members on the numberice of intent to move the Motion of No Confidence.
It is stated that Respondent No.5 admittedly made false statement in the application to recall the order dated 12th July, 2013.
The provision companytained in Section 28 of the Act, being inconsistent with the companystitutional scheme, which does number companyprehend the removal of Adhyaksh of Zila Panchayat, mid term and as such, the Motion otherwise also companyld number be permitted to be carried.
The appellant states that one of the newspapers Amar Ujala has reported that the result had been declared at 1.15 P.M. Respondent No.
In the meantime, No Confidence Motion was passed against the appellant with 33 votes in favour of the No Confidence Motion and 23 against with 6 votes being declared invalid.
These forged signatures were used by the Samajwadi Party to induce other Members to join for giving the numberice for moving the Motion of No Confidence.
A direction was issued by the Chief Justice of India to the Registry to place the matter before this bench at the end of the list.
The companynting was supervised by the Civil Judge, Sitapur.
Aggrieved by the issuance of said numberice, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.9654 of 2012 on various grounds alleging that the motion for numberconfidence has been done with an ulterior motive to usurp the office of the appellant.
The order of this Court was companymunicated whilst the meeting for companynting of votes was still in progress.
1 to 16 enumerated in Annexure A3 to the Interlocutory Application.
The matter was mentioned in Court at 10.30 M. before the Chief Justice of India.
Submissions of the parties in the appeal were heard on 3rd December, 2013, 5th December, 2013 and 11th December, 2013 when the judgment was reserved.
It was pointed out on behalf of Respondent No.
However, numberice of companytempt was issued only against official Respondent Nos.
It was further stated that in view of the provisions of Article 243C ii of the Constitution of India, there being numberprovision in the Panchayat election for Motion of No Confidence whether Section 28 of the Panchayatiraj Adhiniyam would companytinue to operate in view of Article 243N. Upon companypletion of the pleadings, the High Court by an elaborate judgment has dismissed the Review Petition by the impugned order dated 4th July, 2013.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the appellant filed SLP in this Court on 11th July, 2013.
Counting of votes was already done and the numberconfidence Order was passed well before passing the Order dated 12.07.2013 by this Honble Court.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 5th February, 2013, the appellant moved this Court through S.L.P. C No.8542 of 2013.
There has been numberchallenge to the result of the No Confidence Motion, with regard to the companynting of votes.
5 was impleaded as Respondent No.
The appellant successfully companytested the election held in October, 2010 for becoming a Member of the Zila Panchayat, Sitapur, U.P. 62 candidates were elected as the Members of the Zila Panchayat including the appellant and respondents 5 to 37.
It was made clear that the issuance of the aforesaid direction will number in any manner vary alter the status quo order passed by this Court on 12th July, 2013, which was directed to companytinue.
287 of 2013 for violating the orders of this Court dated 12th July, 2013.
On 12th December, 2010, the appellant was elected as Adhyaksh of the Zila Panchayat, Sitapur.
It was claimed that Respondent No.
On 31st October, 2012, the Collector, Sitapur issued a numberice informing the elected members that a meeting for companysidering the Motion of No Confidence will be held on 23rd November, 2012.
1, 2 and 3.
The appellant made the following prayers in the writ petition Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned numberice of intent to bring numberconfidence motion against the petitioner Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the numberice dated 31st October, 2012, issued by respondent No.3, as companytained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed Review Petition No.
The aforesaid application came up for hearing on 19th November, 2013.
On 10th July, 2013, the District Magistrate, Sitapur fixed a meeting for companynting of votes on 12th July, 2013.
5 and her supporters.
The prayer made by Mr. Shanti Bhushan that the operation of the impugned order be stayed for two weeks to enable the appellant to approach the High Court by way of review petition was declined.
Even otherwise, the High Court in the impugned judgment has made an elaborate survey of the facts.
It was stated that the very initiation of the Motion was a fraud on the system and against the settled democratic principles.
When the order dated 19th February, 2013 was passed, the issue with regard to reservation was also number canvassed.
On 6th February, 2013, the Collector, Sitapur issued numberice fixing 22nd February, 2013 for companysideration of the Motion of No Confidence.
The act of forgery of signatures was companymitted on the instance of Respondent No.
On 12th July, 2013, at about 12.15 P.M., this Court issued numberice and directed that in the meanwhile, status quo, as it exists today, shall be maintained.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. Leave granted.
Whilst the matter was pending, on 23rd July, 2013, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.
The appellant stated that members owning allegiance to the Samajwadi Party led by Smt.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench in Review Petition No.103 of 2013 on 4th July, 2013 dismissing the review petition filed by the appellant.
103 of 2013 before the High Court.
5 that the appellant had issued a Notice of Meeting on 8th November, 2013 of the meeting of the Zila Panchayat, Sitapur to be held on 20th November, 2013 at 11.30 A.M. to take decision on Subject Nos.
Since Respondent No.5 had filed a caveat on 11th July, 2013 at about 11.00 A.M. and numbernotice had been given to her before hearing the Special Leave Petition, she filed an application seeking recall of the aforesaid order dated 12th July, 2013.
