Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 - Section 15(2) - A Pramukh can be removed when a vote of no confidence is passed against him - Once the no confidence motion fails, it cannot be brought again for one year.
The legislature being empowered by the Constitution has legislated to provide for the establishment of Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats in the Districts of Uttar Pradesh to undertake certain Governmental functions at Kshettra and District levels respectively in furtherance of the principles of democratic decentralisation of Governmental functions. It intends to empower the Panchayats and that is why, Section 9 clearly provides that the term of the office of Pramukh is for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting. That brings stability to the administration of the Gram Panchayat. Simultaneously, it also provides that the democracy at the rural level must cherish the values of democracy and, therefore, a Pramukh can be removed when a vote of no confidence is passed against him. Once the no confidence motion fails, it cannot be brought again for one year. It is worthy to note here that subsection (13) of Section 15 provides that no notice of a motion under Section 15 shall be received within two years of the assumption of office by a Pramukh. This is in consonance with the principle of stability of rural governance. There are provisions for removal in case of misconduct and certain other situations with which we are not concerned. We have referred to this aspect to highlight how the legislature has visualized the democracy at the grass root level. In view of the premised reasons, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Dipak Misra, CJI.) (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
May 17, 2018
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2622 OF
2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 1724 of 2018)
Kiran Pal Singh
Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)
J U D G
M E N T
Dipak Misra, CJI.
India, a vast country, lives in villages. The Gram Sabhas in the
ancient era were conferred certain powers so that there could be a feeling of
participation in the societal and local issues and also to establish a
sociocultural amity among the members of the collective. History records with
satisfaction that panchayats were able to settle disputes amongst the villagers
and they had many a tool to focus on unity. Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation,
emphasized on many an occasion that people should go to the villages to realize
the true character of real India. He had said with emphasis that “”India lives
in her seven hundred thousand villages” and “the soul of India lives in its
villages”. The Constituent Assembly debates reflected on the importance of the villages
but it thought appropriate to incorporate the concept of village panchayats in
Article 40 of the Constitution which occurs in Chapter IV dealing with
Directive Principles of State Policy. The said article provides that the State shall take steps to organize
village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authorities as may be
necessary to enable them to function as units of selfgovernment. The said article, as is evincible, only requires the State to
take steps to confer such powers.
2. With the passage of time,
it was realized that there had been no real decentralization of powers. In the
absence of basic decentralization of powers travelling to the mores in one of
the largest democracies like India, it was felt that the real purpose of social
transformation could not be achieved. It was acknowledged and accepted that the
people at the grass root level deserved to be politically, economically and
socially empowered and the Seventy Third Amendment was brought into the
framework of our organic Constitution with the clear intent of having local
selfgovernment. The vision, it can be said with certitude, is sacred and the
same is explicit from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Seventy Third
Amendment to the Constitution. It reads as follows:
“Though the Panchayati Raj
Institutions have been in existence for a long time, it has been observed that
these institutions have not been able to acquire the status and dignity of
viable and responsive people's bodies due to a number of reasons including
absence of regular elections, prolonged supersessions, insufficient
representation of weaker sections like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women,
inadequate devolution of powers and lack of financial resources.
2. Article 40 of the
Constitution which enshrines one of the Directive Principles of State Policy
lays down that the State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow
them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function
as units of selfgovernment. In the light of the experience in the last forty years and in
view of the shortcomings which have been observed, it is considered that there
is an imperative need to enshrine in the Constitution certain basic and
essential features of Panchayati Raj Institutions to impart certainty,
continuity and strength to them.
3. Accordingly, it is
proposed to add a new Part relating to Panchayats in the Constitution to provide
for among other things, Gram Sabha in a village or group of villages;
constitution of Panchayats at village and other level or levels; direct
elections to all seats in Panchayats at the village and intermediate level, if
any, and to the offices of Chairpersons of Panchayats at such levels;
reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion
to their population for membership of Panchayats and office of Chairpersons in Panchayats
at each level; reservation of not less than onethird of the seats for women; fixing
tenure of 5 years for Panchayats and holding elections within a period of 6
months in the event of supersession of any Panchayat; disqualifications for
membership of Panchayats; devolution by the State Legislature of powers and
responsibilities upon the Panchayats with respect to the preparation of plans
for economic developments and social justice and for the implementation of development
schemes; sound finance of the Panchayats by securing authorisation from State
Legislatures for grantsinaid to the Panchayats from the Consolidated Fund of
the State, as also assignment to, or appropriation by, the Panchayats of the
revenues of designated taxes, duties, tolls and fees; setting up of a Finance
Commission within one year of the proposed amendment and thereafter every 5
years to review the financial position of Panchayats; auditing of accounts of
the Panchayats; powers of State Legislatures to make provisions with respect to
elections to Panchayats under the superintendence, direction and control of the
chief electoral officer of the State; application of the provisions of the said
Part to Union territories; excluding certain States and areas from the application
of the provisions of the said Part; continuance of existing laws and Panchayats
until one year from the commencement of the proposed amendment and barring
interference by courts in electoral matters relating to Panchayats.”
3. The
amendment saw the introduction of Articles 243 to 243O which are meant for the
panchayats at different levels that include Article 243(d) which defines ‘Panchayat’
to mean an institution (by whatever name called) of selfgovernment (constituted
under Article 243B) for the rural areas. The said articles ignited the spirit
of selfgovernance in the pyramidical structure of local self government. The
democratically organized units have been conferred powers of governance and the
purpose as envisioned is to instill a sense of satisfaction in the people at the
grass root level. It has been so recognized in Bhanumati etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2010 SC 3796 : (2010) 12 SCC 1. The twoJudge Bench in
the said case has expressed thus with lucidity:
“32. What was in a nebulous
state as one of Directive Principles under Article 40, through 73rd
Constitutional Amendment metamorphosed to a distinct part of Constitutional
dispensation with detailed provision for functioning of Panchayat. The main
purpose behind this is to ensure democratic decentralization on the Gandhian principle
of participatory democracy so that the Panchayat may become viable and responsive
people's bodies as an institution of governance and thus it may acquire the necessary
status and function with dignity by inspiring respect of common man.”
4. The singular purpose of
so stating is that the source of power has been incorporated in the
Constitution which requires the States to make law to carry out the
constitutional command. The structure of the panchayats, the concept of Gram Sabha, the composition
of panchayats, reservation of seats, duration of panchayats, disqualification
for membership, powers, authority and responsibility of panchayats and
conferment of power on the panchayats to impose taxes, duties, tolls and fees,
election to the panchayats, and creation of bar for courts to interfere in
electoral matters clearly show the distinct identity carved out for the panchayats.
The legislations made by the State legislatures, inter alia, have fixed the tenure of
the panchayats and also grant protection for continuance of the elected members
subject to the disqualifications and further the method for vote of no confidence.
We shall dwell upon the said aspect after delineation of the facts of the case.
5. In the instant case, the
appellant was elected as Pramukh, Kshettra Panchayat Vikash Khand Gulawati,
District, Bulandshahr in the election held in the year 2015. Some of the members
of the said panchayat moved an application under Section 15(2) of the Uttar
Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (for brevity, “the
Act”) before the District Magistrate/Collector, District Bulandshahr for
carrying out a no confidence motion against the Pramukh. As no action was taken
by the District Magistrate/Collector, one of the movers of the motion preferred
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49013 of 2017 in the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad seeking direction to the competent authority to accept the notice
dated 09.10.2017 under Section 15(2) of the Act and to take appropriate steps
for bringing logical end to the no confidence motion.
6. The Division Bench of the
High Court on 24.10.2017 asked the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to
obtain instructions and posted the matter on 01.11.2017. On the date fixed, the
Writ Petition was dismissed as not pressed. It is not necessary to advert under
what circumstances the said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed.
7. As the facts would further
uncurtain, on 31.10.2017 another written notice of intention to make the motion
of no confidence was delivered to the District Magistrate/Collector, Bulandshahr
with signature of 35 members. The District Magistrate/Collector issued notice
on 07.11.2017 to convene a meeting of Kshettra Panchayat for consideration of
the motion of no confidence at 10.30 a.m. on 27.11.2017 in the office of Kshettra
Panchayat. On the said date, in the presence of the authorized officer, the
vote of no confidence motion was considered and, eventually, after casting of
votes, the no confidence motion was passed by 32 votes against the appellant.
8. In pursuance of the said
proceedings, the post of Pramukh fell vacant and a public notice was issued on
21.02.2018 for holding the election on 09.03.2018 and the respondent No.11 was
elected. We may hasten to add that we are really not concerned with the passing
of vote of no confidence motion or the election of the respondent No.11 in the
subsequent election.
9. Suffice it to state that
the appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution assailing the second notice for want of confidence on the
foundation of statutory impermissibility. It was contended before the High Court
that under Section 15(2) of the Act, the District Magistrate/Collector had
completely erred in accepting the notice of intention to convene a meeting and,
therefore, the ultimate result of the said meeting is sans effect. The High
Court, by the impugned order dated 22.11.2017, negatived the said contention and
dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal by way of special leave.
10. Presently, we shall
scrutinize the relevant statutory scheme. Section 8 of the Act provides for the term of Kshettra Panchayat
and its members. Section 9 deals with the term of Pramukh. It lays the
postulate that save as otherwise provided in the Act the term of office of a
Pramukh of a Kshettra Panchayat shall commence upon his election and shall
extend up to the term of the Kshettra Panchayat. Section 11 deals with
resignation of Pramukh or a member. Section 13 deals with disqualification for membership
of Kshettra Panchayat. Section 15 deals with motion of nonconfidence in
Pramukh. Subsection (1) of Section 15 stipulates that a motion expressing want
of confidence in the Pramukh of a Kshettra Panchayat may be made and proceeded with
in accordance with the procedure laid down in the subsequent subsections. Subsection (2) of Section 15 requires the 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 Kshettra Panchayat for the
time being together with a copy of the proposed motion, to be delivered in person,
by any one of the members signing the notice, to the Collector having
jurisdiction over the Kshettra Panchayat. Subsection (3) of Section 15, by
employing the word ‘shall’, makes it obligatory for the Collector, upon
receiving a written notice as aforesaid, to convene a meeting at the office of
Kshettra Panchayat for consideration of the motion within 30 days from the date
on which the notice under Section 15(2) is delivered to the Collector. Further,
the Collector is also obligated to give to the elected members of the Kshettra
Panchayat a notice, in such a manner as may be prescribed, at least 15 days
prior to the meeting which he is required to convene. That apart, the explanation
appended to subsection (3) to Section 15 stipulates that for the purposes of
calculating 30 days specified in this subsection, the period during which any
stay order issued by a competent court on a petition filed against the motion
is in force plus such further time as may be required for issuing of fresh notices
of the meeting to the members, shall be excluded.
11. Subsection (4) of Section
15 postulates that the subdivisional officer of the subdivision in which the
Kshettra Panchayat exercises jurisdiction shall preside over the meeting convened
for consideration of the motion at the office of the Kshettra Panchayat. The
subsequent subsections of Section 15 stipulate that no debate on the motion
under Section 15 shall be adjourned and the Presiding Officer shall not speak
on the merits of the motion. Also, he is not entitled to vote in the motion.
12. Subsection (11)(a) of
Section 15 provides that if the motion is carried with the support of more than
half of the total number of elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat, the
Presiding Officer shall cause this fact to be published by affixing a notice on
the notice board of the office of the Kshettra Panchayat and also by notifying
the same in the Gazette. Subsection (11)(b) of Section 15 stipulates the
consequences of a successful motion being carried out to the effect that the
Pramukh of the Kshettra Panchayat ceases to hold office and is required to
vacate the same on and from the date next following that on which the said notice
is fixed on the notice board of the office of the Kshettra Panchayat.
13. Subsection (12) of Section
15 deals with the situation when a motion is not carried as contemplated by the
aforesaid subsections of Section 15. For our purposes, subsection (12) of Section
15, being pertinent, is reproduced below:“( 12) If the motion is not carried as
aforesaid or if the meeting could not be held for want of quorum, no notice of
any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same Pramukh shall
be received until after the expiration of one year from the date of such
meeting.”
14. The aforesaid provision is absolutely clear and unambiguous. The
conditions precedent for stipulation of the period of one year after the
expiration from the date of such meeting are dependent on three situations,
namely, (i) if the motion is not carried out as contemplated under subsection (11),
(ii) if the meeting would not be held for want of the quorum and, (iii) the
notice of no confidence motion should be in respect of the same Pramukh.
15. To appreciate the
controversy, we have to understand the 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, 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 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 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 been a valid notice
as contemplated under Subsection (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.
16. We may now note the stand
that was put forth before the High Court. It was contended that during the
pendency of the 1st
notice, the 2nd notice could not have been
issued. There was no assertion that the meeting was convened pursuant to the 1st notice in the manner in
which the statute provides for the same. The words “not carried out” as
aforesaid are of immense significance. The meeting has to be convened as per
the provisions of the said Section. The second part relates to want of the
quorum. Though the quorum has not been defined under the Act, yet in the
context, it would mean the quorum that requires the number of members to be
present for the purpose of voting. For example, if the notice of intention is given to the
Collector by more than half of the total members in Kshettra of 40 members but
on the date of the meeting, there are only 10 members, indubitably there is a
lack of quorum. Similarly, when the quorum is there and voting takes place, but
eventually the vote of no confidence fails then the motion is not carried out
as per the provisions contained in Section 15. To understand the concept of quorum,
we may refer with profit to the authority in The Punjab University,
Chandigarh v. Vijay Singh Lamba and othres, (1976) 3 SCC 344 wherein while discussing
about quorum, the Court had held:
“7. …‘Quorum’ denotes the minimum number of
members of any body of persons whose presence is necessary in order to enable
that body to transact its business validly so that its acts may be lawful. …”
17. In Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 74, the word ‘quorum’ has
been defined as follows:“ The word ‘quorum’, now in common use, is from the
Latin and has come to signify such a number of officers or members of any body,
as is competent by law or constitution to transact business;… Quorum of a body
is an absolute majority of it unless the authority by which the body was
created fixes it at a different number.”
18. In Black’s Law Dictionary
(Second Edition),
the word ‘quorum’ is defined as under:
“When a committee, board of directors. meeting of shareholders, legislative or other body of persons
cannot act unless a certain number at least of them are present, that number is
called a “quorum.” Sweet. In the absence of any law or rule fixing the quorum, it
consists of a majority of those entitled to act. See Ex parte Willcocks, 7 Cow. (N.Y.) 409, 17 Am. Dec. 525;
State v. Wilkesville Tp.. 20 Ohio St. 293; Heiskell v. Baltimore, 65 Md. 125, 4
Atl. 136, 57 Am. Rep. 308; Snider v. Rinehart, 18 Colo. 18, 31 Pac. 716.”
19.
In this context, reference to subsection (6) of Section 15 is fruitful. It
reads thus:
“( 6) As soon as the meeting convened under this section commences,
the Presiding Officer shall read to the Kshettra Panchayat the motion for the
consideration of which the meeting has been convened and declare it to be open
for debate.”
It is quite clear that only when the number of persons are present
and the meeting takes place, the debate under subsection (6) comes into play.
Thus, in the absence of quorum, the said provision will not come into play.
20. In the case at hand, there
is no allegation that the meeting was convened to consider the previous notice
dated 9th October, 2017, as provided
in Section 15 and the motion was not challenged on any other ground or the lack
of quorum. What is singularly contended is that once a notice is given under
Section 15(2), another notice of no confidence shall not be received until after
expiration of one year. The said submission is without any substance inasmuch
as the prohibition under Section 15(12) would only come into play when there is
meeting and the motion is “not carried out” as per the provisions of Section 15
or meeting could not be held for want of quorum. As the facts of the instant case
would reveal that no meeting was convened to consider the previous notice dated
9th October, 2017, as per the
provisions of the Act. Mere receipt of a notice by the Collector will not allow
the prohibition under Section 15(12) to come into play. That is not the purpose
of the provision. That being the position, the ground urged by the learned
counsel for the appellant that subsection 15(12) would come into play is sans
substratum. Neither of the conditions precedent is satisfied to attract the
prohibition engrafted under Section 15(12) of the Act.
21. As we have stated earlier,
the legislature being empowered by the Constitution has legislated to provide
for the establishment of Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats in the Districts
of Uttar Pradesh to undertake certain Governmental functions at Kshettra and
District levels respectively in furtherance of the principles of democratic
decentralisation of Governmental functions. It intends to empower the
Panchayats and that is why, Section 9 clearly provides that the term of the office
of Pramukh is for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting.
That brings stability to the administration of the Gram Panchayat.
Simultaneously, it also provides that the democracy at the rural level must
cherish the values of democracy and, therefore, a Pramukh can be removed when a
vote of no confidence is passed against him. Once the no confidence motion
fails, it cannot be brought again for one year. It is worthy to note here that subsection (13) of Section 15 provides
that no notice of a motion under Section 15 shall be received within two years
of the assumption of office by a Pramukh. This is in consonance with the
principle of stability of rural governance. There are provisions for removal in
case of misconduct and certain other situations with which we are not concerned.
We have referred to this aspect to highlight how the legislature has visualized
the democracy at the grass root level.
22. In view of the premised
reasons, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Comments
Post a Comment