Collector's Actions in No Confidence Motion Held Illegal; Cost Imposed on State for Abdication of Statutory Duties: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court, in a significant judgment, quashed orders passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer (DPRO) and the District Magistrate (Collector) rejecting a notice of no confidence motion against a Block Pramukh. The Court ruled that both the rejection and the procedural actions undertaken by the authorities were illegal, as they were contrary to the mandate of Section 15 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961. The judgment emphasized the Collector's responsibility to personally examine such motions and condemned the abdication of statutory duties in delegating this task to a committee.

The petition was filed by elected members of the Kshettra Panchayat, challenging the rejection of their no confidence motion against the Block Pramukh of Block Dudhahi, District Kushinagar. The petitioners alleged that the motion, signed by 101 out of 139 elected members, was submitted to the Collector on August 12, 2024, in accordance with Section 15(2) of the Act. However, the Collector delegated the examination of the motion to an inquiry committee, which concluded that 48 members had denied their signatures, rendering the motion invalid. Based on this report, the District Panchayat Raj Officer rejected the motion on August 21, 2024. The Collector later issued a separate order on November 12, 2024, affirming the rejection.

The Court rejected the contention that the writ petition was invalid due to the improper impleadment of the Block Pramukh by name. It held that since the Block Pramukh had entered an appearance and been heard, the defect was not fatal. Improper impleadment, the Court clarified, is a curable defect and does not warrant dismissal of the petition.

The Court ruled that the Collector acted illegally in delegating his statutory responsibility under Section 15 to a three-member inquiry committee. Referring to Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of U.P. and Utma Devi v. State of U.P., the Court reiterated that the Collector is required to personally verify whether the motion bears the signatures of at least half of the elected members. The Collector does not have the authority to act as a civil court or to delegate this responsibility, except to an Additional Collector as permitted by law. The constitution of the inquiry committee, therefore, violated statutory provisions.

The Court held that the District Panchayat Raj Officer lacked jurisdiction to reject the notice of no confidence motion. Section 15 vests exclusive authority in the Collector to deal with such motions, and the involvement of the District Panchayat Raj Officer was entirely without legal basis.

The Court found that the Collector’s order dated November 12, 2024, was vitiated by illegality. The order was issued solely based on the inquiry report prepared by the committee, without any independent verification or application of mind by the Collector. The Court condemned the Collector's inaction and abdication of responsibility, emphasizing that he failed to act promptly as required under the statutory timeline. The judgment described the Collector’s order as a “knee-jerk reaction” to the Court’s observations and characterized it as an afterthought designed to “cover his tracks.”

The Court quashed the following:
The District Panchayat Raj Officer’s order dated August 21, 2024.
The Collector’s order dated November 12, 2024.
The inquiry report dated August 17, 2024, prepared by the committee.
The Court directed the Collector to personally verify the signatures on the motion of no confidence by referring to the records of the Kshettra Panchayat. If satisfied that the motion meets the statutory requirement of being signed by at least half of the elected members, the Collector was ordered to convene a meeting for consideration of the motion within 30 days, providing at least 15 days’ notice to the members as required under Section 15.

Additionally, the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the State for the Collector’s abdication of responsibility, with liberty to recover the amount from the concerned authority.

The Collector is required to act promptly and independently on a no confidence motion under Section 15 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961.

The Collector’s role is limited to a prima facie verification of the validity of the motion based on the Kshettra Panchayat’s records. Detailed evidentiary inquiries or delegations of power are impermissible.

Delegation of the Collector’s powers under Section 15 is restricted to the Additional Collector and cannot be extended to other authorities or committees.

Improper impleadment is not a fatal defect if the concerned party has been afforded an opportunity to be heard.

The judgment is a strong reaffirmation of the statutory framework governing no confidence motions in Kshettra Panchayats under the Act of 1961. It underscores the obligation of the Collector to act within the limits of the law, without delegating powers or abdicating responsibilities. The imposition of costs signals the Court’s disapproval of administrative arbitrariness and ensures accountability in the exercise of statutory powers.

Date of Decision: January 10, 2025