The requisition for convening a special meeting to pass a resolution to remove the President of a Municipal Council need not state the grounds on which the President is to be removed.

Headnote:
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL - REMOVAL OF PRESIDENT - REQUISITION - GROUNDS - NECESSITY - SECTION 55 OF THE MAHARASHTRA MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1965 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

A requisition was given for convening a special meeting of the Municipal Council to pass a resolution to remove the President from his post. The requisition stated that the Council had no faith or confidence in the President and hence the meeting removes him from the post of the President. The President challenged the requisition on the ground that it did not state any grounds on the strength of which he was to be removed from his office.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the requisition for convening a special meeting to pass a resolution to remove the President of a Municipal Council need not state the grounds on which the President is to be removed.
Issues: Whether the requisition for convening a special meeting to pass a resolution to remove the President of a Municipal Council need state the grounds on which the President is to be removed.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Section 55 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 and held that it does not require the requisition to state the grounds for the removal of the President. The Court also held that the tenure of the President is conterminous with the term of the elected Councillors and is subject to the pleasure of the majority of the Councillors. The Court further held that the removal of a President by a majority of the Councillors does not amount to any stigma on the person so removed.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition challenging the requisition for convening a special meeting to pass a resolution to remove the President of a Municipal Council.

JUDGMENT - Padhye, J.

1. The only question pressed in this petition is, whether the requisition for convening a meeting to pass a resolution to remove a President of a Municipal Council need state the grounds on which the President is to be removed.

2. Section 55 provides for the removal of President and Vice-President. This section is the subject-matter of the main controversy in this petition and the construction of this provision is the matter of debate. Portion of Section 55 which is relevant for the purposes of the present controversy needs to be reproduced. It is:

"Section 55 (1). A president or a Vice President shall cease to be President or Vice President as the case may be, if the Council by a resolution passed by a majority of the total number of councillors (excluding the co-opted councillors) at a special meeting so decides.

(2) The requisition for such a special meeting shall be signed by not less than one-fourth of the total number of councillors (excluding the co-opted councillors) and shall, if such meeting is to be convened for considering the resolution for removal from office-

X X X X X

(4) x x x x

The co-opted Councillors present at the meeting shall have no right to vote on any resolution relating to the removal of the President or the Vice President." (Emphasis supplied).

3. Sub-section (2) of Section 55 requires that the requisition for such special meeting, as contemplated by Sub-section (1), shall be signed by not less than one-fourth of the total number of Councillors (excluding the co-opted Councillors) and if the Council passes a resolution by a majority of the total number of Councillors (excluding the co-opted Councillors) at a special meeting, the President or the Vice President ceases to be the President or the Vice President, as the case may be. In this petition the requisition for a special meeting as required by Section 55 (2) of the Act with the requisite number of Councillors was given for removing the President from that post and the substance of the resolution in the said requisition was that the Council had no faith or confidence in the President of the Council and hence the meeting removes him from the post of the President. In pursuance of this requisition, the Councillors convened a special meeting of the Council to consider the said resolution and authorised an officer to preside over such a meeting. In this meeting votes of eligible voters were taken and the resolution was passed by the Municipal Council. The question that has been raised in this petition is that the requisition itself is invalid as it did not state any grounds on the strength of which the President was to be removed from his office. It has been contended on behalf of the President against whom this so called no confi- dence motion was tabled that the grounds or the reasons for his removal or for no confidence in him must necessarily be stated either in the requisition or in an appendix thereto so that the President concerned must have a reasonable opportunity to meet those grounds at the time of the meeting and to be able to convince or persuade the Councillors to take the view that the reasons for his removal are without any substance and there is no cause for his removal. On the other hand, the respondents contend that it is not necessary to state any grounds for the removal of the President in the requisition and it is enough if the proposed resolution states that the President is to be removed from his office,

4. On a plain reading of Section 55 of the Act, it does not appear that the requisition must also state the grounds or reasons on which the President is sought to be removed from his office. It does not require any reasonable opportunity to be given to the President who is sought to be removed. In contrast, to Section 55, Section 56 of the very Act requires that when a President or the Vice President is to be removed from his office on account of his absence without l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document