M. Katji, J.@mdashBy means of this wri petition, the petitioner is challenging th impugned order of the Collector, Azamgarl dated 21197.
2. Heard learned counsel for th petitioner.
3. The facts of the case are that notice for holding of no confidence motion against the Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat Azamgarh was sent to the Collector under Section 28(2) of the U. P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 purporting to have been signed by 33 members of the Zila Panchayat. Admittedly there are 59 members of the Zila Panchayat, Azamgarh and hence it was claimed that more than half of the members have signed the notice and hence it was valid in view of Section 28(2) which states:
"(2) A written notice of intention to make the motion, in such form as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one half of the total number of (elected members) of the Zila Panchayat for the time being, together with a copy of the proposed motion, shall be delivered in person, by any one of the (elected members) signing the notice, to the Collector having jurisdiction over the Zila Panchayat."
However, it appears from a perusal of the impugned order dated 21197 that six persons claiming to be members of the Zila Panchayat, Azamgarh appeared before the Collector and stated that they had never signed the said notice and their signatures were forged. It appears that the Collector compared the signatures of these persons with the signatures on the notice and he was satisfied that these signatures were forged. If these six persons ar excluded than it is obvious that at most 27 members of the Zila Panchayat singed the notice which is less than half of the total membership of the Zila Panchayatand consequently the notice becomes illegal.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that three persons Raj Bahadur, Ambika Singh and Chandrika Kalan claiming to the members of the Zila Panchayat have filed affidavits that in fact they had signed the notice of noconfidence and they never appeared before the Collector on 2011997. Hence, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that more than half of the members of the Zila Panchayat have signed the notice. It thus appears that there is a factual controversy whether in fact Raj Bahadur, Ambika Singh and Chandrika Kalan appeared before the Collector and gave a statement that they had signed the said notice or whether some impostors appeared before the Collector. It is also to be decided whether these persons had not signed the notice earlier but later changed their version. It is not possible for this Court to decide these factual controversies under Article 226 of the Constitution. The remedy of the petitioner, if he wanted to allege that they persons had in fact signed the notice and that some impostors had later appeared before the Collector, was to give some evidence or proof before the Collector that in fact Raj Bahadur, Ambika Singh and Chandrika Kalan had not appeared before the Collector and that they had indeed signed the notice. If the petitioner had appeared before the Collector and filed affidavits before him with these allegations, the Collector would have held an enquiry into this matter and ascertained whether genuine persons had appeared or impostors had appeared before himand whether these three persons had in fact signed the notice.
5. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed but it is open to the petitioner to appear before the Collector alongwith affidavits of these persons and other proof in connection with the above mattersand if the petitioner appears before the Collector then the Collector will enquire into the matter and do the needful as expeditiously as possible.
