IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 276 of 2011 Smt. Shanti Bhatt …………..appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………Respondents ……………………….. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ravi Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.P.Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Rakesh Thapaliyal, Advocate with Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the private respondents. . Judgment Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Section 15 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be adopted for consideration of a motion of no-confidence for removal of Pramukh or Up-Pramukh of a Kshettra Panchayat. The appellant herein is the Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, Haldwarni. The Collector having jurisdiction over Kshettra Panchayat, Haldwani, received a written notice of intention to move a motion to remove the appellant signed by at least half of the total number of elected members of the said Keshttra Panchayat with a copy of the proposed motion. He accordingly, convened a meeting for consideration of the said motion. Before, however, the date fixed for consideration of the said motion arrived a few of the 2 members, who said to have had submitted the said motion, held out by way of a representation to the Collector concerned that they have full confidence in the appellant. Accordingly, the Collector while directing an inquiry to be made into the matter, stayed the convened meeting for consideration of the motion. This action on the part of the Collector was challenged by people who had submitted the said motion and by the judgment and the order under appeal their contention has been upheld and it has been declared that in law the Collector had no authority to stay a meeting of the nature, as above, after the same has been convened. The appellant is not aggrieved by the said pronouncement. With the pronouncement, as above, by the judgment and order under appeal, a direction has been issued to the Collector to re-convene the said meeting. The appellant is aggrieved thereby. According to the appellant the Collector having had convened such a meeting once could not convene the meeting twice. It is submitted that the Collector had only 30 days time to convene the meeting for consideration of the motion from the date of receipt of the written notice to that effect. It is the contention of the appellant that the Collector neither could extend the said time, nor the Court in the circumstances could effect extension of the said time. In this connection, reference was also made to the explanation appended to subsection (3) of Section 15 of the Act where extension is permissible only in the case where there is a stay by a competent court, and since, the Collector was neither a court, nor was competent to interfere with the convened meeting, it was contended by the appellant that the court erred by giving a direction for re-convening the meeting. 3 We think that it would be appropriate to extract herein subsections (1), (2) & (3) of Section 15 of the Act which are as follows : 15. Motion of non-confidence in Pramukh or Up Pramukh.- (1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Pramukh or any Up-Pramukh 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 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. A look at the said sub-sections would make it abundantly clear that once a written notice with the intention to make the 4 motion with a copy of the proposed motion has been received by the Collector concerned, he is bound to convene a meeting to consider the motion. The Legislature has ordained that the Collector must convene such a meeting within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written notice. The Legislature has directed that the notice of such meeting to be given to the members of the Panchayat shall not be less than 15 days. In the circumstances, the Collector has to take steps for convening the meeting within first 14 days of receipt of the written notice. That being the statutory obligation to the Collector, he has no other option but to discharge such obligation. In the instant case, he discharged such obligation. After he had discharged such obligation, he did something which he was not permitted to do i.e. direct stay of the convened meeting. The said action on the part of the Collector was a non est action. In the circumstances, ignoring the stay thus granted by the Collector, the members could hold the meeting and decide upon the motion. However, instead of doing so the members approached the court for obtaining a declaration to the effect that said action on the part of Collector staying the convened meeting is non est. The Court has declared the same. Having had declared that the said action on the part of the Collector was non est, the Court had two options left to be done. One to uphold, if the meeting had been held, despite the stay of the meeting by the Collector, that the meeting was validly held or to ensure that the meeting contemplated in terms of the written notice is actually held, after the impediment for the meeting created by the non est act of the Collector is removed. In the instant case, since the convened meeting was not held in view of the said non est action on the part of the Collector, the court had 5 no other option, but it was obliged to ensure that a meeting is convened and held to consider the proposed motion. That having been done in the instant case, there is no scope of interference, and accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 29.11.2011 29.11.2011 Kaushal