Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
Jai Charan Lal Anal, Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 199 of 1967, D/- 5-5-1967.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen. Senior Advocate (M/s. L. N. Mathur and B. Dutta. Advocates and Mr. O. C. Mathur, Advocate of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with him), for Appellant Mr. C. B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate (Mr. O. P.Rana, Advocate, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3; Mr. S. P. Sinha, Senior Advocate (Mr. M. I. Khowaja, Advocate, with him), for Respondents Nos. 5 to 13.
MUNICIPALITIES - U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, S. 87-A - Motion of non-confidence against President - Procedure - Notice of intention to move motion - Time for sending notice - Computation of period - Meeting for consideration of motion - Date of meeting - Computation of period - Adjournment of meeting by judicial officer - Power of judicial officer to adjourn meeting in advance.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Jai Charan Lal Anal, was elected as a member of the Municipal Board, Sikandrao in December, 1964. He was later elected as the President of the Board. On October 26, 1966 a notice of intention to move a motion of non-confidence in the appellant was presented by certain members of the Board to the District Magistrate, Aligarh. The District Magistrate issued notices to the members on November 17, 1966 fixing November 25, l966 as the date for the meeting of the Board to consider the non-confidence motion. The meeting was adjourned to December 5, 1966, and the non-confidence motion was passed unanimously. The appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Allahabad asking that the meeting be stopped. The High Court declined to quash the resolution of the Board.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the meeting was not contrary to the provisions of S. 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act and the resolution therefore being ultra vires and illegal was void. The Court further held that the notice which was sent out by the District Magistrate by registered post did not allow seven clear days before the date of the meeting as required by the latter part of sub-section (3). The Court also held that the District Magistrate had to convene the meeting for the consideration of the motion on a date which was not earlier than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-s. (2) was delivered to him. The Court further held that the judicial officer is empowered to adjourn the meeting in advance if he knows in advance that he would not be able to attend the meeting.
Issues: 1. Whether the meeting was contrary to the provisions of S. 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act and the resolution therefore being ultra vires and illegal was void? 2. Whether the notice which was sent out by the District Magistrate by registered post did not allow seven clear days before the date of the meeting as required by the latter part of sub-section (3)? 3. Whether the District Magistrate had to convene the meeting for the consideration of the motion on a date which was not earlier than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-s. (2) was delivered to him? 4. Whether the judicial officer is empowered to adjourn the meeting in advance if he knows in advance that he would not be able to attend the meeting?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the meeting was not contrary to the provisions of S. 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act and the resolution therefore being ultra vires and illegal was void because the notice which was sent out by the District Magistrate by registered post did allow seven clear days before the date of the meeting as required by the latter part of sub-section (3) and the District Magistrate had to convene the meeting for the consideration of the motion on a date which was not earlier than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-s. (2) was delivered to him. 2. The Court held that the judicial officer is empowered to adjourn the meeting in advance if he knows in advance that he would not be able to attend the meeting because the words of sub-s. (5) are that if the judicial officer is unable to preside at the meeting he may, after recording his reasons; adjourn the meeting to such other date and time as he may appoint.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Judgement
HIDAYATULLAH, J.: This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad, December 6, 1966, in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 4287 of 1966.
2. The appellant. Jai Charan Lal Anal was elected as a member of the Municipal Board, Sikandrao in December, 1964. He was later elected as the President of the Board. On October 26, 1966 a notice of intention to move a motion of non-confidence in the appellant was presented by certain members of the Board to the District Magistrate, Aligarh. The District Magistrate issued notices to the members on November 17, 1966 fixing November 25, l966 as the date for the meeting of the Board to consider the non-confidence motion. This was done under S. 87-A of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, l916. On November 22, 1966, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Allahabad asking that the meeting be stopped. The case was listed before the High Court on December 1, l966. Before this the meeting of the Board was adjourned to December 5, 1966, under circumstances to which detailed reference will be made presently. The High Court directed that the petition should be listed for December 6, 1966. By that date the adjourned meeting was held on December 5, 1966, and the non-confidence motion was passed unanimously. 10 out of 15 members who were present voted in its favour and none against it. The appellant thereupon asked the High Court to quash the resolution of the Board. The High Court by the order under appeal declined to do so on the ground that even if there were some irregularities in calling the meeting, the resolution, having been passed by the necessary majority, the case was not fit for the exercise of its discretionary powers.
3. In this appeal the question has been raised that the meeting itself was contrary to the provisions of S. 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act and the resolution therefore being ultra vires and illegal was void. This argument is based upon the procedure which is laid down in S. 87-A of the Act. We may now refer to those provisions. Section 87-A deals with motion of non-confidence against the President. It begins by stating that subject to the provisions of the section such a motion shall only be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the section. Sub-section (2) requires that a written notice of intention to make a motion of non-confidence on the President must be signed by such number of members of the Board as constitute not less than onehalf of the total strength of the Board and must be accompanied by a copy of the motion which it is proposed to make and should be delivered in person by any two of the members signing the notice to the District Magistrate. This was done. Subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6) then provide as follows :-
"(3) The District Magistrate shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion to be held at the office of the board, on the date and at the time appointed by him which shall not be earlier than thirty and not later than thirty-five days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) was delivered to him. He shall send by registered post not less than seven clear days before the date of the meeting, a notice of such meeting and of the date and time appointed therefor, to every member of the board at his place of residence and shall at the time cause such notice to be published in such manner as he may deem fit. Thereupon every member shall be deemed to have received the notice."
"(4) The District Magistrate shall arrange with the District Judge for a stipendiary civil judicial officer to preside at the meeting convened under this section, and no other person shall preside thereat. If within half an hour from the time appointed for the meeting, the judicial officer is not present to preside at the meeting, the meeting shall stand adjourned to the date and the time to be appointed and notified to the membe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
