JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the notice issued by the Collector dated September 11, 2000, convening the special meeting of the respondent No. 4 Council on September 19, 2000 to consider the resolution of no-confidence moved against the petitioner.

2. Briefly stated, on December 17, 1998, the petitioner was elected as the President of the respondent No. 4 Municipal Council which consists of 52 elected Councillors. The petitioner's term as President of the Council was originally for a period of 2½ years from the said date, however, more than half of the total Councillors expressed No Confidence against the petitioner and called upon the Collector to convene special meeting of the Council, for the purpose of removal of the petitioner as the President, within the meaning of section 55 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Pursuant to the above said requisition the Collector issued impugned notice dated September 11, 2000 convening the special meeting of the Council.

3. This writ petition was moved for urgent circulation before this Court on 18th September, 2000, however, the matter was kept on 19-9-2000, first on board, for admission, having regard to the fact that the special meeting was convened at around 11-00 a.m. on 19-9-2000 itself. When the matter was called out for admission, at around 11-30 a.m., the learned A.G.P. pointed out that the special meeting held pursuant to the impugned notice has since been concluded and Resolution has been carried through by majority of 39:6. Nonetheless, as the petitioner was assured at the time of mentioning that upon hearing if this Court takes the view that the petitioner has made out prima facie case then appropriate relief would be passed in favour of the petitioner including setting aside the Resolution passed by the Council in the meeting held pursuant to the impugned notice.

4. Shri Bobde, Senior Advocate with Shri R.V. More appeared for the petitioner. Shri C.J. Sawant with Vijay Patil appeared for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

5. The only point raised by Shri Bobde, learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioner, is that the impugned show cause notice is bad as it does not contain any reason which persuaded the majority of the Council members to initiate action for the removal of the petitioner from the post of the President of the Municipal Council. According to him, the show cause notice should clearly indicate the reason which prevailed upon the members to take action under section 55 of the Act, with a view to ensure compliance of principles of natural justice. In support of this contention, emphasis is placed on the expression "removal" appearing in section 55 of the Act. It is contended that since the petitioner was being removed from the post of the President, it was bound to entail into some civil consequences, for which it was essential to indicate the reasons in the notice so as to adhere to the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the expression "removal" also appears in Article 311 of Constitution of India and therefore the same will have to be construed in the same manner as understood by the Apex Court to mean that before removing any person it is essential to mean that before removing any person it is essential to follow the principles of natural justice. In support of this submission reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 71 (Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna and others)1, and the decision of the Mysore High Court reported in A.I.R. 1954 Mysore 59 (B. Krishnaappa v. Banglore City Co-op Bank Ltd. and another)2. Reliance is also placed on the book titled "Law of Meeting" by B.A. Masodkar, as he then was. Relevant portion which has been relied upon from the said book thus re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document