Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1964 Supreme(SC) 116

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
K. Narasimhiah, Appellant
Versus
H. C. Singri Gowda and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 223 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar and R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocates, for appellant; M/s N. S. Krishna Rao, and Girish Chandra, Advocates, for Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 10, 12 to 15.

Advocates:
GIRISH CHANDRA, N.S.KRISHNA RAO, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, S.K.VENKATARANGA IYENGAR

The provision of three clear days' notice for a special general meeting under S. 27(3) of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951, is directory and not mandatory.

Headnote:
MYSORE TOWN MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1951 - S. 27(3) - NOTICE FOR SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING - MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

A special general meeting of the Holenarsipur Municipality was held on October 14, 1963, to discuss a resolution expressing no confidence in the President, Mr. Narasimhiah. The President challenged the legality of the meeting and the validity of the resolution, arguing that the requisite three days' notice was not served on all the members, that he was not allowed to preside, and that the requisition for moving the resolution did not comply with the proviso to S. 23(9) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the provision of three clear days' notice for a special general meeting under S. 27(3) of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951, is directory and not mandatory. The Court found that the failure to give three clear days' notice to some of the Councillors did not affect the validity of the meeting or the resolution of no confidence passed there against the appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether the requirement of three clear days' notice for a special general meeting under S. 27(3) of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951, is mandatory or directory? 2. Whether the failure to give three clear days' notice to some of the Councillors affected the validity of the meeting or the resolution of no confidence passed there against the appellant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the provision of three clear days' notice for a special general meeting under S. 27(3) of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951, as directory and not mandatory based on the following factors: - The use of the word "shall" in the provision is not conclusive on the question of whether it is mandatory or directory. - The legislature's intention in making the provision was to ensure that Councillors have sufficient time to arrange their other business to attend the meeting, but it did not intend that failure to give the full period of notice should invalidate the proceedings. - The existence of S. 36 of the Act, which provides that any irregularity in the service of notice upon any Councillor will not make a resolution of the Council invalid unless the proceedings were prejudicially affected by such irregularity, further supports the view that the provision is directory. 2. The Court found that the failure to give three clear days' notice to some of the Councillors did not affect the validity of the meeting or the resolution of no confidence passed there against the appellant because: - Nineteen of the twenty Councillors attended the meeting, and 15 of them voted in favor of the resolution. - There was no evidence that the proceedings of the meeting were prejudicially affected by the irregularity in the service of notice.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the failure to give three clear days' notice to some of the Councillors did not affect the validity of the meeting or the resolution of no confidence passed there against the appellant.

Judgement

DAS GUPTA, J.: Is the requirement of three clear days notice for the holding of a special general meeting as embodied in S. 27(3) of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act 1951, a mandatory provision? That is the main question which arises for decision in this appeal.

2. The appellant was elected as the President of Holenarsipur Municipality on September 11, 1962. At a special general meeting of the Municipal Council held on October 14, 1963, a resolution was passed in the following terms:-

"This Council has no confidence in the Municipal President of Holenarsipur Municipality."

3. On November 2, 1963 Mr. Narasimhiah, the President of the Council applied to the High Court of Mysore under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of an appropriate writ quashing the proceedings of the meeting which culminated in the resolution of no confidence against him. Prayers were made also for some consequential reliefs.

4. Holenarsipur Municipality has twenty Councillors. Thirteen out of them sent a request to the President to convene a special general meeting to discuss a resolution expressing no confidence in him as President. This request was handed over to the President on 25th September, 1963. As however he did not take any steps for convening the meeting the Vice President acted in the matter-calling a meeting to discuss the resolution to express no confidence in the President. A notice under the Vice-President s signature stating that it was proposed to hold a special general body meeting of the Municipality on the 14th October 1963 at 10 A. M. in the office premises and asking the members to be present in time was served on the Councillors. One copy of the notice was also posted up at the Municipal Office as required by S. 27(3) of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The notice bore the date 10th October 1963. On fifteen of the twenty Councillors the notice was personally served on that very date, i.e., the 10th October. On three of the Councillors, viz., the President Narasimhiah, Mr. Dasappa and Mr. Sanniah, the notice was served on the 13th October. It was served on Councillor Mirza Mohammad Hussain on the 12th October and on the Councillor R. G. Vaidyanatha on the 11th October 1963.

5. When the meeting was held on October 14, 1963, nineteen of the twenty Councillors were present. The President, Mr. Narasimhiah was among them. He claimed to preside over the meeting. But, ultimately, he appears to have left the meeting. The meeting was then held under the presidentship of the Vice-President Mr. Singri Gowda. The no-confidence motion against the President was moved and was passed, fifteen members having voted for it.

6. In challenging the legality of the proceedings of this meeting of the 14th October and the validity of the resolution of no confidence passed there, the petitioner urged three principal grounds. The first is that the requisite three days notice was not served on all the members and so the meeting was not validly held. The second ground urged was that the meeting cannot be said to be properly held as he was not allowed to preside and the Vice-President presided, and thus S. 24(1) (a) of the Act was contravened. Thirdly, it was urged that the requisition for moving the resolution of no confidence did not comply with the proviso to S. 23(9) of the Act as 15 days notice was not given of the intention to move the resolution.

7. The High Court held that on the materials before it, it was not possible to pronounce as to the circumstances under which the Vice-President presided at the meeting. So the High Court rejected the contention that there was any contravention of S. 24(1) (a) of the Act. The case made in the petition that 15 days notice had not been given of the intention to move the resolution does not appear to have been pressed at the hearing; as there is no mention in the judgment of any such argument. On the question whether the failure to serve three days

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1964 Supreme(SC) 116

The provision of three clear days' notice for a special general meeting under S. 27(3) of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951, is directory and not mandatory.

Cases Referred (1)