Summary
The Supreme Court rejected a Pramukh’s contention that merely submitting an earlier no-confidence notice barred a fresh notice for one year. Under Section 15(12), the prohibition arises when a duly convened motion fails or the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum. No meeting had been convened on the first notice here. The Court also confined the Collector’s scrutiny to summary verification of statutory notice requirements, rather than trial of disputed allegations.
Issues
- Whether receipt of an earlier no-confidence notice, without a convened meeting, triggers the one-year bar on a subsequent notice.
- What scrutiny the Collector may undertake before convening the meeting.
Provisions considered
- Section 15(2), (3), (6) and (12), Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961The notice and meeting requirements distinguish receipt of a proposal from failure of a motion or a meeting for want of quorum. Only the latter events engage the one-year bar concerning the same Pramukh. (¶¶ 10, 13, 15, 19, 20)
Held
- The one-year prohibition applies when a no-confidence motion is not carried at the meeting contemplated by Section 15, or that meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, and a subsequent notice concerns the same Pramukh. Mere delivery of an earlier notice does not suffice. (¶¶ 13, 14, 16, 20)
- No meeting had been convened to consider the first notice. Neither statutory condition for the prohibition was met, so the subsequent notice was not barred on the ground advanced. (¶¶ 16, 20)
- The Collector must summarily determine whether the notice fulfils Section 15(2). The short statutory deadlines preclude a regular inquiry into seriously disputed fraud, coercion or undue influence at that stage. (¶¶ 10, 15)
- Quorum denotes the minimum attendance needed to transact business lawfully. Debate under Section 15(6) presupposes a meeting capable of proceeding with the requisite attendance. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs. The challenge to the subsequent no-confidence notice based on the one-year prohibition failed.