The phrase 'absents himself' in Section 36 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, means deliberate and voluntary absence, not mere non-attendance. Involuntary absence due to circumstances beyond a Councillor's control, such as detention under MISA, does not constitute 'absenting himself' and does not lead to disqualification from the Standing Committee.

DHARMADHIKARI, J.:- Petitioner Bhaskar Atmaram Joshi in this case was elected as a Municipal Councillor of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. Besides being a Councillor, he was elected as a member of the Standing Committee of the Corporation in February 1975. On 26th June, 1975, he was detained under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, referred to hereinafter as the MISA, by an order of the Police Commissioner, Nagpur. By a notice dated 30th October, 1975 signed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, the petitioner was informed that as he failed to attend all the meetings of the Standing Committee since July 1975 his membership of the Standing Committee automatically came to an end as per Section 36 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act. It is this notice and the action taken by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner which are challenged in this writ petition.

2. In the return filed on behalf of the Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur, the Municipal Commissioner submitted that the petitioner attended the meeting of the Standing Committee held on 21-6-1975, but he did not attend the meetings held on 8-7-1975, 17-7-1975, 8-8-1975, 22-8-1975 and 29-8-1975. According to this respondent, the petitioner ceases to be a member of the Standing Committee by virtue of the provisions of Section 36 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, referred to hereinafter as the Act. It was further submitted that the petitioner has incurred a disqualification as he absented himself from attending the meeting either voluntarily or otherwise, and therefore, the notice dated 30-10-1975 given by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner is perfectly legal and valid.

3. For properly understanding these rival contentions it will be useful if a reference is made to Section 36 of the Act. Section 36 reads as under:-

"Any member of the Standing Committee who absents himself from all meetings of the Standing Committee during two consecutive months shall cease to be a member of the Standing Committee, and his office as such member shall be vacant, and he shall not be eligible for re-election to the Committee during the unexpired term of the Corporation."

Therefore, the only question which is required to be decided in this writ petition is to find out as to whether the petitioner, who is a member of the Standing Committee has absented himself from all the meetings of the Standing Committee during two consecutive months. The expression used is not 'absent' or 'remained absent', but the Legislature has used the words 'absents himself'.

4. This phraseology used in this very section came for consideration before the Nagpur High Court in Wamanrao v. The Corporation of the City of Nagpur, (Misc. Petn. No. 322 of 1955, decided on 2-1-1956) (Nag). In that case the petitioner attended all the meetings of the Standing Committee till 16-6-1955 except those held on 18-4-1955, 16-5-1955 and 16-6-1955. It was also an admitted position that no notices of the meetings held on 18-4-1955 and 16-5-1955 were served on him. He had also no knowledge of the meetings convened on these dates. In this context, while construing the phrase "absented himself" in Section 36 of the Act, the Nagpur High Court observed as under:

"Absented himself" means kept himself away or stayed away. Could it be said that mere non-presence, from whatever cause arising, would be "absenting himself?" Could it be the intention of the Legislature to penalise an honest member-corporator who is prevented from being present in a meeting for no fault of his when he had no knowledge of the meeting? It is not a case where meetings are held on particular days every month, and hence the member-corporator could be fixed with constructive notice of the dates of the meetings. There is no attempt on the part of the non-applicants to fix knowledge of the meetings on the applicant and hence in the absence of any counter-affidavit on this point, the averment of the petitioner that he had no notice and know