Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the case where it was contended that once a notice is given under Section 15(2) of Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, another notice of no confidence shall not be received until after expiration of one year, the 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr, DY Chandrachud, JJ held that 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. It said:

“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.”

Explaining the legislative intend behind the Act, the Court said that 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. Stating that the Act intends to empower the Panchayats, the Court explained:

“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 sub­section (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.”

Hence, it was held that the scheme of the Act and Section 15 is in consonance with the principle of stability of rural governance. [Kiran Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 547, decided on 17.05.2018]

Case BriefsForeign Courts

Supreme Court  of Pakistan: While discussing the issue of achieving city wide uniformity in installation of billboards and hoardings in the city of Karachi, the three judge bench of Mian Saqib Nisar, Amir Hani Muslim and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ., directed that no billboards and hoardings must be erected on a public property by any authority under the garb of by-laws which militate the civil rights of the public at large. The Bench further observed that “civil rights of the citizens cannot be hampered with by erecting the Billboards or Hoardings on the civic amenity meant for the use and benefit of public at large besides such an act would endanger the life and property of the common man.”

In the present case regarding Report of Karachi Cantonment Board regarding Hoardings and signboards installed with permission and without permission, the Bench considered that there are no laws which permit the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and the Cantonment Boards to install billboards or hoardings on a public property. Such an act on the part of permission granting agency is against the civil rights of the citizens.

The Bench further gave directions that the billboards/hoardings which have been installed on the public properties under any license or lease are to be uprooted by 30-06-2016 by the concerned advertising agencies which own the poles or displaying materials or by the authorities with whose permission the billboards or hoardings have been installed. The Court also directed the Additional Attorney General to hold meetings with all the stakeholders who grant permission for installation of such billboards/hoardings in Karachi in order to finalize the amendments in the by-laws so that city-wide uniformity could be achieved thereby ensuring the safety measures of the citizens of Karachi. [Report of Karachi Cantonment Board regarding Hoardings and signboards installed with permission and without permission, CMA No.209-K of 2014, decided on 05.05.2016]