The essential feature of democracy to remove an elected office bearer on the loss of confidence, and the unreasonable delay in convening the meeting for the Motion of No Confidence.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. John A. Lobo for the Petitioner, Mr. D. Pangam learned Advocate General who appears with Mr. D. Shirodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents no.1 and 2, and Mr. Shirin Naik for Respondents No.3 and 4.

2. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, we make Rule returnable forthwith. Even otherwise, this is a matter, which can brook no delay and is required to be disposed of forthwith, particularly now that the affidavits have been filed by respondents no.2 and 4.

3. The Sankhali Municipal Council (SMC) comprises in all 13 councilors. This petition has been instituted by 6 out of the 13 councilors seeking directions to the Director of Municipal Administration (respondent no.2) to fix an early date for considering the Motion of No Confidence which the petitioners have moved against respondent no.4, the Chairperson of SMC.

4. There is no dispute that 1 out of the 13 councilors Damodar Ghadi expired on 21.11.2020. Soon thereafter, some of the petitioners moved this Court seeking directions to the respondents to hold bye-elections to fill in the vacancy. The bye-elections were ultimately held on 20.03.2021 and even the results were declared on 22.03.2021.

5. Even before such elections i.e. on 18.03.2021, the petitioners had made a requisition to respondent no.2 for holding a special meeting to consider No-Confidence Motion against respondent no.4. Based thereon the respondent no.2 issued notice dated 26.03.2021 for holding a meeting to consider the Motion of No Confidence against respondent no.4, only on 30.04.2021. By further order dated 31.03.2021, the Deputy Collector has been nominated to preside over the special meeting wherein the Motion of No Confidence is to be considered.

6. Mr. Lobo, the learned counsel for the petitioners had earlier submitted that in terms of Section 56(3) of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 (said Act) the Director had to both convene and hold a meeting to consider a motion of no confidence within 10 days from the date of receipt of the requisition. However, this point was not pressed any further after the learned Advocate General relied on the decision in the case of Almeida Carlos v. State of Goa - Writ Petition no.355/2008 decided on 30.06.2008. Mr. Lobo also placed on record decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Chaitram Dagdu Sonavane v. Malegaon Panchayat Samiti by its Secretary and Others, (1966) AIR Bombay 1 which also taken the view that convene means give notice and not actually hold the meeting within 10 days.

7. Mr. Lobo, however, contends that there is no justification whatsoever for deferring such meeting by over four weeks, when, in such matters, the position as to whether the Chairperson enjoys the confidence or not must be determined at the earliest. He submits that for a long time, the petitioners, have been made to wait or even institute proceedings, only to establish that respondent no.4 has lost the confidence of the majority. He submits that fixing such a long date by the Director is an unreasonable exercise of powers and even malafide. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Others v. Speaker, Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Others,2020 SCCOnLineSC 363.

8. Mr. D. Pangam, the learned Advocate General submits that there is absolutely nothing unreasonable in the exercise of powers by respondent no.2. He submits that the elections to several municipal councils were required to be held by 30.04.2021 in terms of orders made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Director, fixed the meeting on 30.04.2021, so that, there would be sufficient time for the officials to oversee or preside over the meeting. The learned Advocate General also referred to the reasoning set out by the Director in his affidavit filed in this petition.

9. The learned Advocate General submitted that without prejudice, the Director will be prepared to hold the m