High Court · 2025 on 06 May 2025

Judgment

1. The petitioner, who is an elected member of Kshettra Panchayat constituted under the Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Act, 19611 delivered in person a written notice of intention to make a motion of no confidence in the Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat in proper form which was signed by more than half of the total number of elected members of Kshettra Panchayat i.e. 70 members out of 100 members, together with a copy of the proposed motion to the Collector, Azamgarh, who had jurisdiction over the Kshettra Panchayat. This notice of no confidence was moved on 7.3.2025 in accordance with Section 15(2) of the Act, 1961.

2. The respondent no. 2 i.e. Collector/District Magistrate, Azamgarh, it is alleged, did not take any action on the notice dated 7.3.2025. Thereafter, within a period of five days on

12.3.2025, 69 members of Kshettra Panchayat allegedly filed notarized affidavit in support of Block Pramukh, enclosed with a letter of the Block Pramukh of the same date, stating that they had not participated in any meeting to propose motion of no confidence against the respondent no.3 and had not signed 1 Act, 1961 1 of 18 affidavit regarding the same. Thereafter, by means of the impugned order dated 20.3.2025, the notice dated 7.3.2025 expressing no confidence was found to be not maintainable and was rejected.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the written notice of intention as envisaged in Section 15(2) of the Act, 1961 is moved before the Collector, the Collector has no option, but to proceed to convene a meeting of Kshettra Panchayat for consideration of motion at the office of Kshettra Panchayat on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than 30 days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act is delivered to him and is mandated to give to the elected members of Kshettra Panchayat a notice of not less than 15 days of such meeting. The Collector cannot embark on a fact finding exercise and collect evidence in that regard. No trial can be conducted by the Collector as he does not have the trapping of the court. Reference has been

made to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Mathura Prasad Tewari Vs. Assistant District Panchayat Officer, Faizabad2.

4. It is stated that the impugned order reflects that 69 affidavits were submitted by the alleged members of Kshettra Panchyat before the Collector on 12.3.2025 stating that they were completely satisfied with the manner of working and the work of Pramukh, who is working for the benefits of Kshettra Panchayat and has done a lot of development works; that 34 members of Kshettra Panchayat had allegedly appeared before the Collector on 20.3.2025, on which date the impugned order was passed; that they submitted affidavits allegedly signed by them stating that they were fully satisfied with the manner of working and the work of the Block Pramukh and expressed 2 1966 ALJ 612 2 of 18 confidence in him, and that they had never signed any affidavits expressing want of confidence in Block Pramukh and if any such affidavits had been filed, the same should be taken as void; that the impugned order reflects that since 34 of the signatories to the written notice of intention to move a motion of no confidence had submitted their affidavits on 20.3.2025, the remaining signatories to the written notice of intention are reduced to 36 which is less than half of the total strength to 100 elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat; that the act of the Collector in rejecting the aforesaid motion is contrary to the statute and against the judgments passed by this Court.

5. On query being made by the court, Shri Sandeep Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, states on the basis of oral instruction received from the District Panchayat Raj Officer3, Azamgarh telephonically, that after receipt of the communication from the respondent No.3 dated 12.03.2025 no report was submitted either by the Chief Development Officer4 or by the DPRO. It is also been submitted by him that after receipt of the notice of No Confidence dated 07.03.2025, though the same were marked by the Collector to the CDO/DPRO, neither of them had submitted any report. It is further been stated by the learned Standing Counsel that it is only on

20.03.2025 that the CDO and the DPRO assembled in the office of the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, the facts were collated and the impugned order was passed. He further states that as per the oral instruction received from the DPRO the file was with the CDO till 18.03.2025 and no report/action was taken or done.

6. On query being made by the court as to how the respondent no.3 had received information about the no- confidence motion being submitted before the Collector, Shri 3 DPRO 4 CDO 3 of 18 K.R. Singh learned counsel, states that no communication whatsoever was received by the respondent No.3 from the office of the Collector or the CDO or the DPRO, but they had received prior intimation on 04 of March 2025 from the local media i.e. a Youtube channel by the name of Janta News channel; that on

07.03.2025, another video was uploaded on Youtube in which the petitioner's husband is shown as showing the notice of no confidence. Thus it is stated that the respondent no. 3 received information about the notice of no confidence motion from the aforesaid YouTube Channel.

7. Shri K.R. Singh, Advocate, has referred to page 33 and 104 of the writ petition to contend that in the affidavits allegedly filed by the signatories to the written notice have stated that a meeting was convened by them on 10.11.2024 whereas in the proposal expressing want of confidence enclosed with the written notice shows the date of 25.2.2025. It is stated that there was no resolution on 10.11.2024 passed by the signatories to the no confidence motion. Hence, the notice of intention to make the motion of no confidence is defective and is liable to be rejected. It is further stated that the affidavit on page 33 of the writ petition is of a later date than the proposal which was allegedly passed in the resolution dated 25.2.2025 but the affidavit refers to a meeting held on 10.4.2024 and therefore, there is a clear contradiction rendering the notice of intention to make the motion of no confidence, defective.

8. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to page 20 of the writ petition, which is part of the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2, to contend that it reflects that on 20.3.2025, 34 members of the Kshettra Panchayat had appeared in person before the Collector and filed affidavits stating that they were completely satisfied with the work of the 4 of 18 Pramukh and that they expressed their confidence in him. The contention is that these 34 affidavits are a repetition of the contents of the affidavits included in the 69 affidavits filed earlier by the Block Pramukh before the Collector.

9. When the matter was listed on 16.4.2025, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents was directed to produce the original record pertaining to the issue in the writ petition and to obtain detailed instructions in the matter and file counter affidavit.

10. On 28.4.2025, for perusal of the Court, the instructions sent by the Collector by means of a letter dated 26.4.2025 were produced, but no counter affidavit has been filed. The original records pertaining to the no confidence motion sought to be moved by the petitioner were produced. It is pertinent to note that despite direction of this Court for filing a counter affidavit, it is reflected in the covering letter of 26.4.2025 sent alongwith the instructions, that the Additional DPRO, Azamgarh was directed to file the aforesaid instructions.

11. The written instructions dated 26.4.2025 as signed by the Collector / District Magistrate and sent to the Standing Counsel, read as under:- “मा० उच्च न्यायालय में योजि(cid:13)त जि(cid:15)वि(cid:17)ल प्रकीर्ण(cid:22) रि(cid:24)ट याचि(cid:27)का (cid:15)ं0-11196/2025 श्रीमती बन्दना बनाम उ० प्र० (cid:24)ाज्य (cid:17) 03 अन्य में पारि(cid:24)त आदेश विदनांक 16.04.2025 के अनुपालन में अनुदेश विनम्न(cid:17)त् है:-

1. यह विक याचि(cid:27)नी द्वा(cid:24)ा विदनांक 07.03.2025 को क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत ह(cid:24)ैया के (cid:15)म्पूर्ण(cid:22) (cid:15)दस्य (cid:15)ंख्या 100 के (cid:15)ापेक्ष 70 (cid:15)दस्यों का शपथ पत्र (cid:15)ंलग्न क(cid:24)ते हुए वि(cid:17)पक्षी (cid:15)ंख्या 03 के वि(cid:17)रूद्ध अवि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) नोविट(cid:15) वि(cid:17)पक्षी (cid:15)ंख्या 02 के (cid:15)मक्ष प्रस्तुत विकया गया। ((cid:15)ंलग्नक 01)

2. यह विक उक्त प(cid:24) वि(cid:17)पक्षी (cid:15)ंख्या 02 द्वा(cid:24)ा तविदद्दनांक को मुख्य वि(cid:17)का(cid:15) अचि>का(cid:24)ी / जि(cid:13)ला पं(cid:27)ायत (cid:24)ा(cid:13) अचि>का(cid:24)ी को विनयमानु(cid:15)ा(cid:24) आ(cid:17)श्यक काय(cid:22)(cid:17)ाही क(cid:24)ने के विनद@श विदये गये।

3. यह विक नोविट(cid:15) हेतु विनयत (cid:15)मय अ(cid:17)चि> के पू(cid:17)(cid:22) ही वि(cid:17)पक्षी (cid:15)ंख्या 03 द्वा(cid:24)ा विदनांक 12.03.2025 को वि(cid:17)पक्षी (cid:15)ंख्या 02 के (cid:15)मक्ष उपस्थिस्थत होक(cid:24) 69 क्षेत्र 5 of 18 पं(cid:27)ायत (cid:15)दस्यों द्वा(cid:24)ा वि(cid:17)पक्षी (cid:15)ंख्या 03 के पक्ष में शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत क(cid:24) उनके काय(cid:22)शैली (cid:17) काय(cid:22) (cid:15)े (cid:15)ंतुष्ट होने तथा अब तक विकये गये (cid:15)मस्त काय(cid:22) (cid:15)मस्त ग्रामों/(cid:17)ार्डोE में (cid:15)मान रूप (cid:15)े क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत के विहत में वि(cid:17)का(cid:15) काय(cid:22) क(cid:24)ाये (cid:13)ाने के का(cid:24)र्ण अपना वि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) व्यक्त विकया तथा उनके द्वा(cid:24)ा वि(cid:17)पक्षी (cid:15)ंख्या 03 के वि(cid:17)रूद्ध प्रस्तुत अवि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) प्राथ(cid:22)ना पत्र प(cid:24) कोई हस्ताक्ष(cid:24) नहीं विकये (cid:13)ाने तथा अवि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) प्रस्ता(cid:17) की मीटिंटग में प्रचितभाग न विकये (cid:13)ाने का अभिभकथन विकया गया। ((cid:15)ंलग्नक 02)

4. यह विक विदनांक 20.03.2025 को क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत ह(cid:24)ैया के 34 क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत (cid:15)दस्य, (cid:13)ो अवि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) (cid:15)ू(cid:27)ी में (cid:15)स्थिम्मलिलत थे , के द्वा(cid:24)ा स्(cid:17)यं वि(cid:17)पक्षी (cid:15)ंख्या 02 के (cid:15)मक्ष उपस्थिस्थत होक(cid:24) इ(cid:15) आशय का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत विकया गया विक (cid:17)े वि(cid:17)पक्षी (cid:15)ंख्या 03 के काय(cid:22)शैली (cid:17) काय(cid:22) (cid:15)े पूर्ण(cid:22) रूप (cid:15)े (cid:15)ंतुष्ट हैं। वि(cid:17)पक्षी (cid:15)ंख्या 03 द्वा(cid:24)ा अब तक क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत के विहत में (cid:15)मस्त काय(cid:22) विकये गये हैं औ(cid:24) क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत के (cid:15)मस्त ग्रामों/(cid:17)ार्डोE में (cid:15)मान रूप (cid:15)े वि(cid:17)का(cid:15) काय(cid:22) भी क(cid:24)ाये गये हैं। शपथकता(cid:22)ओं द्वा(cid:24)ा वि(cid:17)पक्षी (cid:15)ंख्या 03 के पक्ष में अपना वि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) प्रकट विकया गया। शपथकता(cid:22)ओं द्वा(cid:24)ा शपथ पत्र के पै(cid:24)ा 02 में यह उल्लेख विकया गया है विक शपथकता(cid:22) द्वा(cid:24)ा वि(cid:17)पक्षी (cid:15)ंख्या 03 के वि(cid:17)रूद्ध अवि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) प्रस्ता(cid:17) के (cid:15)म्बन्> में यविद कोई नोट(cid:24)ी बयान हल्फी प्रस्तुत की गयी हो तो उ(cid:15)े शून्य (cid:15)मझा (cid:13)ाय। ((cid:15)ंलग्नक 03)

5. यह विक विदनांक 20.03.2025 को वि(cid:17)पक्षी (cid:15)ंख्या 02 के (cid:15)मक्ष उपस्थिस्थत होक(cid:24) क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत (cid:15)दस्यों द्वा(cid:24)ा उक्त के (cid:15)म्बन्> में की गयी पृच्छा के (cid:15)म्बन्> में स्(cid:17)यं यह अ(cid:17)गत क(cid:24)ाया था विक उनके उप(cid:24) विक(cid:15)ी भी व्यविक्त का कोई दबा(cid:17) नहीं है , (cid:17)े वि(cid:17)पक्षी (cid:15)ंख्या 03 में उनके द्वा(cid:24)ा क(cid:24)ाये गये विनष्पक्ष वि(cid:17)का(cid:15) कायZ के दृविष्टगत अपना वि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) प्रकट क(cid:24)ते हैं।

6. यह विक वि(cid:17)पक्षी (cid:15)ंख्या 02 द्वा(cid:24)ा उपस्थिस्थत (cid:15)दस्यों की पह(cid:27)ान (cid:15)ुविनचि\त क(cid:24)ते हुए पत्रा(cid:17)ली प(cid:24) उपलब्> प्रपत्रों, (cid:15)ाक्ष्यों ए(cid:17)ं उ(cid:15)के (cid:15)मक्ष व्यविक्तगत रूप (cid:15)े उपस्थिस्थत होक(cid:24) शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत क(cid:24)ने (cid:17)ाले (cid:15)दस्यों का प(cid:24)ीक्षर्ण क(cid:24)ते हुए अवि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) प्रस्ता(cid:17) क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत तथा जि(cid:13)ला पं(cid:27)ायत अचि>विनयम 1961 (यथा (cid:15)ंशोचि>त) की >ा(cid:24)ा 15 की उप >ा(cid:24)ा 02 में विनर्दिदष्ट अह(cid:22)ताओं प(cid:24) पूर्ण(cid:22) न पाते हुए याचि(cid:27)नी द्वा(cid:24)ा प्रस्तुत अवि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) प्रस्ता(cid:17) वि(cid:17)षयक प्राथ(cid:22)ना पत्र विदनांक 07.03.2025. को पोषर्णीय न पाते हुए वि(cid:17)चि>यों, विनयमों ए(cid:17)ं शा(cid:15)नादेशों के अनुक्रम में स्पष्ट, मुख(cid:24) (cid:17) (cid:15)का(cid:24)र्ण याचि(cid:27)का>ीन आदेश विदनांक 20.03.2025 पारि(cid:24)त विकया गया है (cid:13)ो उचि(cid:27)त ए(cid:17)ं वि(cid:17)चि>(cid:15)म्मत है तथा विन(cid:24)स्त विकये (cid:13)ाने योग्य नहीं है। ((cid:15)ंलग्नक 04) 7. यह विक अवि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) प्रस्ता(cid:17) अस्(cid:17)ीकृ त हो (cid:13)ाने के प\ात याचि(cid:27)नी द्वा(cid:24)ा प्रस्तुत शपथ पत्रों के आ>ा(cid:24) प(cid:24) अग्रेत(cid:24) काय(cid:22)(cid:17)ाही विकये (cid:13)ाने की मांग विनयमानु(cid:15)ा(cid:24) पोषर्णीय नहीं है।

8. यह विक याचि(cid:27)नी द्वा(cid:24)ा अवि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) प्रस्ता(cid:17) हेतु अपेचिक्षत (cid:15)ंख्या पूर्ण(cid:22) न क(cid:24) पाने की हताशा में अनुचि(cid:27)त लाभ प्राप्त क(cid:24)ने की नीयत (cid:15)े गलत तथ्यों के आ>ा(cid:24) प(cid:24) प्रश्नगत याचि(cid:27)का योजि(cid:13)त की गयी है।

9. यह विक याचि(cid:27)नी के पा(cid:15) यह अ(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:24) है विक यविद उ(cid:15)के पा(cid:15) अवि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) प्रस्ता(cid:17) हेतु अपेचिक्षत (cid:15)दस्य (cid:15)ंख्या उपलब्> है तो पुनः अवि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) प्रस्ता(cid:17) ला (cid:15)कती है। (cid:17)ैकस्थिल्पक अनुतोष उपलब्> होने के का(cid:24)र्ण याचि(cid:27)का पोषर्णीय नहीं है।

10. यह विक याचि(cid:27)नी के स्(cid:17)च्छ हाथों (cid:15)े माननीय न्यायालय के (cid:15)मक्ष न आने के का(cid:24)र्ण (cid:17)ह कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त क(cid:24)ने की अचि>कारि(cid:24)र्णी नहीं है।

11. यह विक उप(cid:24)ोक्त का(cid:24)र्णों (cid:15)े बलहीन होने के का(cid:24)र्ण याचि(cid:27)का (cid:15)व्यय विन(cid:24)स्त होने योग्य अनुदेश (cid:15)े(cid:17)ा में (cid:15)ाद(cid:24) प्रेविषत। 6 of 18 जि(cid:13)लाचि>का(cid:24)ी आ(cid:13)मगढ़”

12. A perusal of the original record, in which the pages are numbered in reverse order, reflects that the written notice of intention for moving no confidence motion in Pramukh was made in Form I and signed on 7.3.2025 by the petitioner which was received by the Collector/District Magistrate on 7.3.2025 alongwith the proposed motion of no-confidence and on that very day, he endorsed to the CDO/DPRO. The CDO, Azamgarh endorsed it to the DPRO for taking necessary action as per rules and without delay. This notice bears 70 signatures/thumb impressions. The proposed motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh bears date of

25.2.2025. There are also 70 affidavits signed by persons, who claim to be members of the Kshettra Panchayat, Haraiya, District Azamgarh, and who state that they had assembled at a meeting on

10.11.2024 for purpose of expressing no confidence in the Pramukh and they had signed on the proposal as well as on the written notice of intention.

13. In the original record, there is a letter dated 12.3.2025, which is also enclosed with the instructions, written by Sandeep Patel, Pramukh, Kshettra Panchayat, Haraiya, District Azamgarh addressed to the Collector, Azamgarh on the subject of written notice of no confidence against Block Pramukh. The letter reads as under:- विदनांकः- 12.03.25 "पत्रांकः- (cid:15)े(cid:17)ा में, कलेक्ट(cid:24), आ(cid:13)मगढ़। वि(cid:17)षयः-प्रमुख क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत -ह(cid:24)ैया, (cid:13)नपद-आ(cid:13)मगढ़ के वि(cid:17)रुद्ध प्रेविषत अवि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) प्राथ(cid:22)ना पत्र के (cid:15)म्बं> में। महोदय, 7 of 18 अ>ोहस्ताक्ष(cid:24)ी को वि(cid:17)श्व(cid:15)त (cid:15)ूत्रों (cid:15)े ज्ञात हुआ है विक प्रमुख, क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत-ह(cid:24)ैया, (cid:13)नपद-आ(cid:13)मगढ़ के वि(cid:17)रूद्ध कचितपय क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत (cid:15)दस्यों द्वा(cid:24)ा कु छ क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत (cid:15)दस्यों का फ(cid:13)l हस्ताक्ष(cid:24) बनाक(cid:24) महोदय को अवि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) प्रस्ता(cid:17) प्राथ(cid:22)ना पत्र प्रेविषत विकया गया है, (cid:13)ो क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत तथा जि(cid:13)ला पं(cid:27)ायत अचि>विनयम 1961 की >ा(cid:24)ा 15 के अंतग(cid:22)त वि(cid:17)चि> (cid:15)म्मत नही है। उक्त क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत के विन(cid:17)ा(cid:22)चि(cid:27)त 100 क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत (cid:15)दस्यों में (cid:15)े 69 क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत (cid:15)दस्यों द्वा(cid:24)ा नोट(cid:24)ी शपथ पत्र प(cid:24) इ(cid:15) आशय का बयान विदया गया है विक उनके द्वा(cid:24)ा प्रमुख, क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत- ह(cid:24)ैया, वि(cid:17)का(cid:15) खण्र्डो- आ(cid:13)मगढ़ के वि(cid:17)रूद्ध अवि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) प्राथ(cid:22)ना पत्र प(cid:24) कोई हस्ताक्ष(cid:24) नहीं विकया गया है। अतः आप(cid:15)े अनु(cid:24)ो> है विक उक्त अवि(cid:17)श्वा(cid:15) प्राथ(cid:22)ना पत्र प(cid:24) क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत (cid:15)दस्यों के विकये गये फ(cid:13)l हस्ताक्ष(cid:24) की अपने स्त(cid:24) यथोचि(cid:27)त काय(cid:22)(cid:17)ाही क(cid:24)ने की कृ पा क(cid:24)ें। (cid:15)लग्नकः 69 क्षेत्र पं(cid:27)ायत (cid:15)दस्यों की नोट(cid:24)ी शपथ-पत्र । ((cid:15)ंदीप पटेल) प्रुमुख, क्षेत्र, पं(cid:27)ायत- ह(cid:24)ैया, (cid:13)नपद- आ(cid:13)मगढ़, उ०प्र०”

14. Alongwith the aforesaid letter of 12.3.2025, the notarised affidavits of 69 members of Kshettra Panchayat are enclosed. This letter was received by the District Magistrate on 12.3.2025 who endorsed it to the CDO/DPRO on the same day. On that very day, the CDO, Azamgarh directed, on that letter, the DPRO to take necessary action in accordance with rules without delay. In the enclosed notarised affidavits, it has been stated that they had not participated in the meeting for no confidence proposal against the Pramukh and neither had they signed on the no confidence proposal. They had also not given any affidavit in support of the no confidence motion.

15. Also in the original record are several photographs bearing page nos. 296 to 328, that appear to be taken, perhaps on

20.03.2025, in the office of the Collector / District Magistrate allegedly showing the presence of the signatories to the affidavits 8 of 18 dated 18.3.2025, handing over the same to the Collector. There is bunch of affidavits from page 228 to 295 corresponding to 34 affidavits that are notarised enclosing therewith photocopies of aadhar cards. In the affidavits, it is written that in case the deponent, who is a member of the Kshettra Panchayat, has given any affidavit for no confidence against Pramukh, that should be taken to be void. It is further stated that the deponent expresses confidence in the Block Pramukh and he is satisfied with the work done by the Block Pramukh who has done a lot of development works. On page 295 of the original record, on an affidavit itself, the District Magistrate on

20.3.2025 has endorsed it to the CDO/DPRO. In the original record there is no report or communication whatsoever of either the CDO or the DPRO addressed to the Collector / District Magistrate or to any other authority in compliance of the repeated orders of the Collector dated 7.3.2025,

12.3.2025 and 20.3.2025.

16. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 15 of the Act, 1961 read as follows: "15. Motion of non-confidence in Pramukh- (1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh or any of a Kshettra Panchayat may be made and proceeded with in accordance with the procedure laid down in the following sub-sections. (2) 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, shall be delivered in person, by any one of the members signing the notice, to the Collector having jurisdiction over the Kshettra Panchayat. (3) The Collector shall thereupon- (i) convene a meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat for the consideration of the motion at the office of the Kshettra Panchayat on a date appointed by him, which 9 of 18 shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) was delivered to him; and (ii) give to the elected member of the Kshettra Panchayat notice of not less than fifteen days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation– In computing the period of thirty days specified in this sub-section, the period during which a stay order, if any, issued by a Competent Court on a petition filed against the motion made under this section is in force plus such further time as may be required in the issue of fresh notices of the meeting to the members shall be excluded."

17. Thus the ingredients of sub-section (2) of Section 15, as they appear from a bare reading of the provision, are: (i) a written notice of intention to make a motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh of a Kshettra Panchayat would be in such form as may be prescribed, (ii) this written notice shall be signed by at least half of the total number of elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat for the time being, (iii) the aforesaid written notice shall be accompanied by a copy of the proposed motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh, (iv) the aforesaid written notice as well as a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person by any one of the members signing the written notice to the Collector having jurisdiction over the Kshettra Panchayat.

18. (i) As regards the form in which a written notice of intention to make a motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh of a Kshettra Panchayat is concerned, in the case of 10 of 18 Smt. Phulbasa Vs. District Magistrate Collector and 6 others5, it has been held by this Court after considering several judgments that it would be sufficient notice of intention to make the motion, if the intention to make a motion for no confidence is reflected from perusal of the notice and as such it is not mandatory for the written notice of intention to make the motion to be in the prescribed format. (ii) It is the written notice of intention to make the motion of no confidence that is to be signed by at least half of the total number of the elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat. Though, it is not the requirement nor is it mandatory that affidavits of the signatories to the written notice of intention are to be submitted by the signatories to the written notice, affidavits may be required by the Collector to facilitate the consideration of the written notice of intention to make the no confidence motion as far as its validity is concerned. (iii) The copy of the proposed no confidence motion is to accompany this written notice. That copy of the proposed no confidence motion does not require the signatures of any of the signatories of the written notice. In the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vikas Trivedi Vs. State of U.P.6, it has been observed that while notice of intention to make the motion is required to be signed by at least half of the total number of elected members, there is no such requirement in respect of copy of the proposed motion. As a corollary or even otherwise, the proceedings or date of any meeting of the signatories to the written notice of no-confidence for formulating and resolving the proposed motion of no-confidence is of no consequence for the Collector to consider the validity of the written notice of intention. 5 Writ-C No. 36671 of 2024, Judgment dated 27.3.2025 6 (2013) 2 UPLBC 1193 (para 66) 11 of 18

19. This Court has been noticing that in petitions arising out of steps initiated under Section 15 of the Act, 1961, where affidavits in support of the written notice are being filed before the Collector, rebuttal affidavits are filed allegedly by some signatories of the written notice of intention and the Collector proceeds to consider the rebuttal affidavits to pass an order rejecting the written notice of intention to make the motion of no confidence.

20. In the case of Vikash Kumar and another Vs. State Of Up and others7, it was directed, while relying upon another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Utma Devi vs. State of U.P. & Others8, that where there are affidavits on record in support of the motion and if there are affidavits to the contrary submitted, it is the duty of the Collector to satisfy himself after looking into the record of the Kshettra Panchayat. If the District Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied as to the signatures of the members of the Kshettra Panchayat in the written notice after looking into the records of the Kshettra Panchayat, he would proceed to convene a meeting of Kshettra Panchayat for consideration of ‘no confidence motion’ at the office of Kshettra Panchayat. Such an exercise of looking into the records of the Kshettra Panchayat, however, would not enable the Collector to resolve or enter into finding of facts of seriously disputed question such as forgery, fraud, coercion and/or duress.

21. The Collector is not required to rely upon the contents of any affidavit filed in rebuttal alleging fraud, coercion by expressing denial of signatures and/or the contents of any affidavit in support of the written notice to come to any conclusion regarding the validity of the written notice. Such an exercise is impermissible. The aforesaid judgment of the Utma 7 8 2025 (2) ADJ 1 2014 (4) ADJ 3 12 of 18 Devi has been approved in a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sheela Devi and other Vs. State of UP and others9. The Full Bench in Smt. Sheela Devi has observed that it would not be open to the Collector to resolve or enter into the finding of facts of seriously disputed questions such as forgery, fraud and coercion. However, it was left to the discretion of the Collector in each case of determining on the basis of summary proceedings whether the essential requirements of a valid notice of intention to move a motion of no confidence have been fulfilled.

22. The aforesaid judgment of Smt. Sheela Devi (supra) has been followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kavita Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh10. Moreover, in another judgment of the Supreme Court in Kiran Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others11, it has observed as follows: “19. To appreciate the controversy, we have to understand the scheme engrafted under Section 15 of the Act. Sub- section (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, shall be delivered in person, by any one of the members signing the notice, to the Collector having jurisdiction over the Kshettra Panchayat. Sub-section (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 fulfils the essential requirements of a valid notice. The exercise 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 sub-section (3) mandates that a meeting has to be convened not later than 30 days from the date of delivery of the notice and further there should be at least 15 days' notice to be given to all the elected 2015 (2) ADJ 325