Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Banerji and Choudhary JJ.
Sukhdeo Narayan
Versus
Municipal Commissioners Of Arrah, Municipality
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 38 of 1956 ;
Decided On : APRIL 03, 1956
MUNICIPAL LAW - Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 - Sections 34, 35, 43, 44 - Interpretation - Removal of Chairman - Resignation of Chairman - Acceptance by Commissioners - Withdrawal of resignation - Validity - Meeting of Commissioners - Convening - Special meeting - Requisition - Jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The Arrah Municipality was divided into two hostile camps, leading to Government intervention. The Government asked the Municipal Commissioners to show cause why their offices should not be declared vacant. In response, the Commissioners passed resolutions signifying their intention to resign and to elect new office bearers. However, a requisition meeting was called to consider a no-confidence motion against the Chairman. The Chairman passed an order for a meeting on 7-1-1956, but the requisitionists called a special meeting on 9-1-1956. At this meeting, the no-confidence resolution against the Chairman was carried, his resignation was accepted, and a new Chairman was elected. The petitioners, who were supporters of the former Chairman, challenged the legality of the meeting and the resolutions passed therein.
Finding of the Court:
1. The meeting of 9-1-1956, convened by the requisitionists, was valid and duly constituted as the Chairman had failed to call a meeting within 15 days of receiving the requisition, as required under Section 44(1) of the Act. 2. The meeting was not rendered invalid by the fact that it considered multiple items on the agenda, as the main item related to the removal of the Chairman and the other items were ancillary to it. 3. The resolution to remove the Chairman was invalid as it did not receive the support of two-thirds of the whole number of Commissioners, as required under Section 34 of the Act. 4. The Chairman's resignation, signified at the meeting of 1-12-1955, was valid and effective, as he had unequivocally expressed his intention to resign and the Commissioners had accepted it at the meeting of 9-1-1956. 5. The Chairman's subsequent withdrawal of his resignation had no legal effect, as there was no provision in the Act allowing for such withdrawal. 6. The resolution to recommend the removal of the Chairman from the office of Commissioner was illegal as it was not supported by two-thirds of the whole number of Commissioners, as required under Section 35 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the meeting of 9-1-1956, convened by the requisitionists, was valid and duly constituted. 2. Whether the meeting was rendered invalid by the fact that it considered multiple items on the agenda. 3. Whether the resolution to remove the Chairman was valid. 4. Whether the Chairman's resignation, signified at the meeting of 1-12-1955, was valid and effective. 5. Whether the Chairman's subsequent withdrawal of his resignation had any legal effect. 6. Whether the resolution to recommend the removal of the Chairman from the office of Commissioner was legal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The word "call" in Section 44(1) of the Act means to summon a meeting, and the Chairman is bound to summon a meeting within 15 days of receiving a requisition. 2. A meeting may consider multiple items on the agenda, provided that the main item is of exceptional importance and the other items are ancillary to it. 3. A resolution to remove a Chairman requires the support of two-thirds of the whole number of Commissioners, as specified in Section 34 of the Act. 4. A Chairman's resignation is valid and effective if he unequivocally expresses his intention to resign and the Commissioners accept it at a meeting. 5. A Chairman cannot withdraw his resignation once it has been accepted by the Commissioners. 6. A resolution to recommend the removal of a Chairman from the office of Commissioner requires the support of two-thirds of the whole number of Commissioners, as specified in Section 35 of the Act.
Final Decision: The application for writs of quo warranto, mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari was dismissed with costs.
Banerji, J.
1. This is an unusual petition. Five Municipal Commissioners of the Arrah Municipality have prayed for several writs against the Municipal Commissioners, themselves, and against the Executives. By one writ they want that the Commissioners be compelled to function under opposite party 2, who, according to them, still continues to be the Chairman. By another they want opposite party 2 to be restrained from vacating his office. By yet another writ they want that opposite party 3, who has been elected a Chairman in the meeting of the Municipal Commissioners, be asked to show cause under what authority he has been functioning and why he should not be prohibited from acting as Chairman. They further want a directive from this Court to compel opposite party Nos. 5 to 36, all Municipal Commissioners, to function under opposite party 2 and to be restrained from helping opposite party 3. The last writ sought for is on opposite party 4, President of the Municipality, for quashing his rulings given on the points of order raised in two meetings of the Municipal Commissioners held on the 7th and 9-1-1956.
2. The facts giving rise to an interesting situation like this require a little elaboration. I call it interesting because the petitioners want opposite party 2 to be restrained from vacating his office when it is manifest that he is only too eager to continue as Chairman of the Municipality and to that effect has filed his affidavit and his submissions in detail.
3. Opposite party 2, Sri Rameshwar Prasad Agarwal, was elected Chairman of the Arrah Municipality on 5-8-1952, and on the same day Sri Choudhri Sharafat Hussain, opposite party 4, and Sri Raghunath Prasad, opposite party 5, were elected President and Vice-Chairman, respectively. From 1952 to March 1955 was a period which may be described as peaceful in the administration of the Arrah Municipality.
Dissensions started sometime in March 1955, and it appears that the Municipality was divided in two hostile camps. Their hostility, which hampered the business of the Municipality, attracted the attention of the Government who, by its letter dated 10-6-1955, asked the Executives of the Municipality to take immediate steps to improve its administration and to relieve the District Magistrate from his present duties under Sec.384, Sub-section (3), Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act.
It appears that the District Magistrate was appointed, in the meantime, by the Government to authorise expenditure from the funds of the Municipality in order to avert serious injury to the public. This letter of the Government was followed by another dated 8-11-1955 as, in its opinion, the warning issued on 10-6-1955 could bear no fruit. In the second letter it was stressed that, on account of the differences amongst the Municipal Commissioners, the budget estimates for 1955-56 could not be passed and the differences were so deep that there was little possibility of arriving at any satisfactory solution. Accordingly, by this letter, the Government asked the Commissioners of the Municipality under Sec.385, Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, hereinafter to be referred as the Act, to show cause why their offices should not be declared to be vacant. It may be stated here that a requisition meeting was called under Section 44(1) of the Act to be held on 28-11-1955 to pass a no-confidence motion on the Chairman (opposite party 2).
4. This letter created some stir, and the Municipal Commissioners met at a meeting held on 1-12-1955 to consider the same and to send a suitable reply. The reply is of the same date and was signed by opposite party Nos. 2, 4 and 5 and the Municipal Commissioners. Along with this letter, copy of which has been marked Annexure B, a copy of the resolution unanimously passed by the Municipal Commissioners after due consideration was enclosed. The relevant resolutions passed on this date and transmitted to Government are as follows :
"1. Three present executives that is the Chairma
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
