Case: KIRAN PAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

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 Ors. 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 Blacks 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 Sub-section (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 Sub-section (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 Sub-Section 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 Sub-section (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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]13. Sub-section (12) of Section 15 deals with the situation when a motion is not carried as contemplated by the aforesaid sub-sections of Section 15.14. 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 Sub-section (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.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.It is quite clear that only when the number of persons are present and the meeting takes place, the debate Under Sub-section (6) comes into play. Thus, in the absence of quorum, the said provision will not come into play.To understand the concept of quorum, we may refer with profit to the authority in The Punjab University, Chandigarh v. Vijay Singh Lamba and Ors.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. ...19. In this context, reference to Sub-section (6) of Section 15 is fruitfulIt is quite clear that only when the number of persons are present and the meeting takes place, the debate Under Sub-section (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 Sub-Section 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 Sub-section (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.