JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, J.:—Special leave granted.

2. As common questions of fact and law are involved in all the above cases, as such they are disposed of by one single order. First proviso to S. 9 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provided for nomination of only one woman as a member of the Municipal Board by the State Government. Further, there was no provision permitting the State Government to cancel the nomination of such member at its pleasure. One Smt. Sarla Devi was nominated by the State Government as the sole woman member for the Shahjahanpur Municipal Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) in January, 1989. By U.P. Ordinance No. 2 of 1990 later on succeeded by Ordinance No. 8 of 1990 and eventually replaced by U.P. Act No. 19 of 1990, the aforesaid first proviso to S. 9 of the Act was substituted by another proviso which made provision for the nomination of two women members by the State Government. Further, a fourth proviso was also added to S. 9 of the Act which provided that the nomination of the aforesaid two members was at the pleasure of the State Government. The aforesaid Ordinance No. 2 of 1990 was promulgated on 15-2-1990.

3. Soon thereafter on 19-2-1990, a general notification was issued by the State Government cancelling of nominations of women members in several Municipal Boards in Uttar Pradesh. The nomination of Smt. Sarla Devi also stood cancelled. On 19-4-1990, the State Government nominated Smt. Abida and Hazra Khatoon as members of the Board under the newly introduced fourth proviso to S. 9 of the Act. The total strength of the Board was 37 including two nominated women members. On 22-7-1991 Mohd. lqbal was the President of the Board and Shri Om Narain Agarwal was the Vice-President of the Board. Some members of the Board on 22-7-1991 initiated no-confidence motion against Mohd. lqbal before the District Magistrate in accordance with the procedure prescribed under S. 87A of the Act. The District Magistrate fixed 12-8-1991 for consideration of the no-confidence motion. In the meantime, the State Government on 2-8-1991 in exercise of its powers under the fourth proviso to S. 9 of the Act issued notification cancelling the nominations of Smt. Abida and Hazra Khatoon and in their place nominated Smt. Shyama Devi and Smt. Baijanti Devi as the two women members of the Board. On 9-8-1991 Mohd. lqbal filed a Writ Petition No. 20731 of 1991 in the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the fourth proviso to S. 9 of the Act as well as the notification dated 2-8-1991 whereby the nominations, of Smt. Abida and Hazra Khatoon were cancelled and in their place Smt. Shyama Devi and Smt. Baijanti Devi were nominated. Mohd. lqbal also challenged the proceedings of no-confidence motion initiated against him. The High Court in the aforesaid writ petition passed an interim order stating that outcome of the no-confidence proceedings shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. but did not grant any stay of no-confidence proceedings. Smt. Shyama Devi and Smt. Baijanti Devi participated in the meeting held on 12-8-1991 and so far as Smt. Abida and Hazra Khatoon are concerned, they neither attended the said meeting nor claimed any right to attend the same. In the aforesaid meeting held on 12-8-1991, 20 members of the Board voted in favour of the no-confidence motion out of the total strength of 37 members of the Board. After the no-confidence motion dated 12-8-1991 having been passed against Mohd. lqbal, a casual vacancy arose in the Office of President of the Board by virtue of S. 47A of the Act and Shri Om Narain the then Vice-President was elected as President of the Board. Om Narain took charge of the said office and continued to function as President thereafter. Mohd. Iqbal then filed another Writ Petition No. 23861 of 1991 on 20th August, 1991 challenging the no-confidence motion dated 12-8-1991 passed against him. The High Court refused to pa