JUDGMENT

R. M. SAHAI, J.:—Validity of the no-confidence motion passed, on 28th March, 1990, under S. 87A of the U.P. Municipalities Act (in brief the Act) by the Board against the appellant, who was elected in November, 1988 by the electorate, directly under S. 43(2) of the Act, as President of Rae Bareilly City Municipal Board, having population of less than one lakh, was assailed as violative of the democratic concept of removal or recall of an elected representative by a smaller and different body than the one that elected him, in this appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court rendered in a Writ Petition filed under Art. 226 of Constitution of India. Statutory arbitrariness, arising out of application of Ss. 47A and 87A of the Act to the Presidents of the Municipalities either elected by the Board of electorate as irrational and invalid of Art. 14 of the Constitution was, yet, another ground of attack. Reduction of period from two to one year during which a vote of no-confidence could be tabled against a President by ordinance issued in 1990 which later became Act was challenged for absence of any discrenible and reasonable principle and resorted to as spoil system thus constitutionally invalid.

2. Democracy is a concept, a political philosophy an ideal practised by many nations culturally advanced and politically mature by resorting to governance by representatives of the people elected directly or indirectly. But electing representatives to govern is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right but a special right created by the statutes,#1 or a political right or privilege and not a natural absolute or vested right #2. Concepts familiar to common law and equity must remain stranger to Election Law unless statutorily recognised.#3 Right to remove an elected representative, too, must stem out of the statute as in the absence of a constitutional restriction it is within the power of a legislature to enact a law for the recall of officers#4. Its existence or validity can be decided on the provision of the Act and not, as a matter of policy. In the American Political Dictionary#5 the right of recall is defined as, a provision enabling voters to remove an elected official from offence before his or her term expired. American jurisprudence explains it thus, Recall is a procedure by which an elected officer may be removed at any time during his term or after a specific time by vote of the people at an election called for such purpose by a specified number of citizens#6. It was urged that recall gives dissatisfied electors the right to propose between elections that their representatives be removed and replaced by another more in accordance with popular#7 will therefore the appellant could have been recalled by the same body, namely, the people who elected him. Urged Shri Sunil Gupta, learned counsel, that since, A referendum involves a decision by the electorate without the intermediary of representatives and, therefore, exhibits form of direct democracy#8 the removal of the appellant by a vote of no-confidence by the Board which did not elect him was subversive of basic concept of democracy. Academically the submission appeared attractive but applied as a matter of law it appears to have little merit. None of the political theorists, on whom reliance was placed, have gone to suggest that an elected representative can be recalled, only, by the persons or body that elected him. Recall expresses the idea that public officer is indeed a "servant of the people" and can therefore be dismissed by them#9. In modern political set up direct popular check by recall of elected representative has been universally acknowledged in any civilised system. Efficacy of such a device can hardly admit of any doubt. But how it should be initiated, what should be the procedure, who should exercise it within ambit of constitutionally permissible limits falls in the domain of legislative power. Under a constitutiona