@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M. Katju, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat, Basti, elected on 10.8.2000. The petitioner is challenging an order adjourning the meeting
for no-confidence (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). By that order, the meeting for no-confidence has been fixed on 5.2.2003 at 11.00 a.m. by the
Presiding Officer Sri A.K. Ravi, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the adjournment amounts to violation of Section 28 (4B) and (12) of the U. P. Kshetriya
Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961. He has also submitted that in view of subsection (12) of Section 28, the no-confidence motion
should be held to have been dropped and cannot be tabled again for a period of one year.
4. In our opinion, this is not a fit case for exercising discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is well-settled that in a writ, the petitioner
has not only to show violation of law, but he must also show equity in his favour. Merely by showing violation of law, no writ can be issued in his
favour. In the present case, at the most, it can be said, if at all, that the petitioner has been able to show violation of law but he has not been able to
show equity in his favour or any prejudice against him. Both the aforesaid conditions are conditions precedent under Article 226 of the Constitution
inasmuch as writ is a discretionary remedy.
5. In a democracy, the people have a right wherever there is a statutory provision to hold a no-confidence motion if they want to remove any
elected person. The petitioner is the elected Chairman of the Zila Parishad, Basti and he should face the no-confidence motion. If he has done
good deeds then the no-confidence motion will be defeated but if he has done bad deeds, the no-confidence motion will succeed. People are
supreme in a democracy and the people have a right to remove a person in authority if he has lost their confidence.
6. The petition is dismissed.
