Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a Block Pramukh’s challenge to a no-confidence meeting notice. The Collector’s scrutiny under Section 15 of the U.P. Panchayat legislation is summary: it permits checking essential notice requirements but not a full evidentiary trial into disputed allegations of fraud in obtaining signatures. The challenge alleging inadequate notice was also rejected on the record; the meeting had proceeded and the motion carried by a majority.
Issues
- Whether the Collector had to conduct a detailed enquiry into members’ allegations that their signatures were obtained by fraud.
- Whether the no-confidence notice failed to provide the required fifteen days’ notice.
Provisions considered
- Section 15(2) and (3), U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961The Collector must scrutinise essential notice requirements summarily within the statutory meeting and notice timetable, without trying seriously disputed allegations requiring evidence. The inadequate-notice challenge failed on the factual record. (¶ 5–8)
Held
- The Collector may determine whether a notice satisfies the essential requirements of Section 15(2), but cannot assume the powers of a trial court to resolve seriously disputed allegations of fraud, coercion or undue influence through a detailed evidentiary enquiry. The thirty-day meeting requirement and fifteen-day notice requirement demand summary scrutiny. (¶ 6–7)
- The claim that ten signatories’ subsequent affidavits required such a detailed enquiry was correctly rejected. The Collector must remain within the statutory limits and leave the remaining issues to determination in the meeting. (¶ 7–8)
- The High Court’s rejection of the inadequate-notice contention warranted no departure. The appellant had avoided personal receipt, notice was sent by post, and her own objection and the record undermined her claim. The factual dispute could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction in these circumstances; the meeting had meanwhile been held and the motion passed by a majority. (¶ 5–6)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; rejection of the challenge to the no-confidence notice upheld.