KIRAN PAL SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

KIRAN PAL SINGH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Section 15(12) operates only when a meeting is actually convened pursuant to a notice of no confidence and either the motion is not carried or there is want of quorum; in the absence of a meeting, merely receiving a notice does not prevent receiving a subsequent notice within one year. Therefore, the second notice and consequent actions were not invalid.

Parties
Appellant: Kiran Pal Singh; Respondents: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order of the High Court in Writ Petition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
No Confidence Motion, Panchayati Raj Institutions, Interpretation of Statutes
Local Self Government Administrative Law Election Law No Confidence Motion Panchayati Raj Institutions Interpretation of Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiran Pal Singh

Appellant

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order of the High Court in Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a second notice of no confidence under Section 15(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, could be issued when the first notice was pending and no meeting had been convened?
  2. 2 Whether the prohibition under Section 15(12) applies merely on the receipt of a notice, or only after the meeting has been held and the motion is not carried or there is want of quorum?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 15(12) operates only when a meeting is actually convened pursuant to a notice of no confidence and either the motion is not carried or there is want of quorum; in the absence of a meeting, merely receiving a notice does not prevent receiving a subsequent notice within one year. Therefore, the second notice and consequent actions were not invalid.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • There shall be no order as to costs.