Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 756
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Mr. Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
SURESH MISHRA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. 21747 (W) Of 2006
Decided On : 12/01/2006
Daisy Basu, FAZLUL HAQUE, K.N.NABI, KAJAL ROY, KALYAN BANDOPADHYAY, MILAN BHATTACHARJI, Partha Sarathi Deb Barman, TARUN KUMAR DAS
The validity of a requisition meeting convened under Rule 9(3)(b) of the West Bengal Municipal (Conduct and Business) Rules, 1995 depends on whether the request for the meeting is made by not less than one-third of the total number of councillors of the municipality and whether the request is valid and not vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation.
Headnote:
MUNICIPAL LAW - REMOVAL OF CHAIRMAN - VALIDITY OF REQUISITION NOTICE - WEST BENGAL MUNICIPAL (CONDUCT AND BUSINESS) RULES, 1995 - RULE 9(3)(B) - REQUISITION MEETING - VALIDITY OF NOTICE - INTERPRETATION - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
A requisition meeting was convened by three councillors of the Champdani Municipality to consider a no-confidence motion against the Chairman. The Chairman challenged the validity of the notice convening the meeting, arguing that the request for the meeting did not satisfy the condition laid down in Rule 9(3)(b) of the West Bengal Municipal (Conduct and Business) Rules, 1995.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the withdrawal of the request by four out of the nine councillors who had initially requested the meeting was valid, as their signatures on the request had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The court further held that the request made by the remaining five councillors did not satisfy the requirement of Rule 9(3)(b) of the Rules, as five out of 22 councillors were less than one-third of the total number of councillors.
Issues: 1. Whether the withdrawal of the request by four councillors was valid. 2. Whether the request made by the remaining five councillors satisfied the requirement of Rule 9(3)(b) of the Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Fraud vitiates everything. Once the allegation of fraud is proved, the court cannot permit the subsequent actions based on such fraud to remain on record. 2. Consent is a conscious act of a party. When a party giving consent discovers that such consent was given unconsciously, he/she has every right to rectify himself/herself by withdrawal of consent. Unconscious consent is no consent.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned notice convening the requisition meeting and the resolution taken in the meeting.
( 2 ) THE Chairman along with the seven other councillors of the said municipality filed this writ petition.
( 3 ) LET me now give the short background of the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition.
( 4 ) NINE councillors out of 22 of the said municipality, by their notice dated 25th August, 2006 requested the Chairman of the said municipality to convene a meeting for transacting the agenda regarding removal of the Chairman from his office.
( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, four out of those nine councillors withdrew themselves from the said request, and intimated their decision to the chairman by their letter dated 26th August, 2006, being Annexure P-2 to this writ petition. The reasons which prompted them to withdraw themselves from the said request were also explained by them in their said letter. The said four members also in their respective affidavits affirmed by them disclosed the reasons for their withdrawal.
( 6 ) THE said four members, in fact, changed their decision as their signatures in the letter dated 25th August, 2006 were obtained by the other five members by misrepresentation and/or by exercise of fraud upon them. The said four members also asserted therein that they still hold their confidence in the said Pradhan.
( 7 ) THE Chairman, thereafter, by his notice dated 14th September, 2006, being Annexure P-4 to this writ petition convened an ordinary meeting for discussing various agenda including the agenda regarding the proposal of those five members for convening the meeting for his removal.
( 8 ) A resolution which was unanimously adopted in the said meeting held on 23rd September, 2006, has also been produced before this Court to show that the Chairman's decision to drop the said proceeding, was approved by the members unanimously as, due to withdrawal of such request by four out of those nine members, the requirement of convening the meeting pursuant to such request did not satisfy the conditions of rule 9 (3) and (4) of the West Bengal Municipal (Conduct and Business)Rules, 1995.
( 9 ) THREE out of the remaining five councillors who did not withdraw themselves from their initial request to the Chairman for calling such a meeting, issued a notice on 18th September, 2006 being Annexure P-5 to this writ petition, convening a requisition meeting to be held at the office of the said municipality at 11. 00 a. m. on 23. 9. 2006 for considering the agenda regarding "no Confidence" against the Chairman.
( 10 ) PURSUANT to the said notice, a special meeting was held on 23rd september, 2006 and all the thirteen members who were present in the said meeting supported the motion of "no Confidence". Accordingly, a "no Confidence" motion was passed and a resolution was adopted in the said meeting.
( 11 ) HOWEVER, the resolution which was adopted in the said meeting was not given effect to in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 21st September, 2006.
( 12 ) COPIES of these resolutions which were produced before this court, were kept with the records.
( 13 ) IN this context a question has cropped up with regard to the validity of the notice dated 18th September, 2006 being Annexure P-5 to this writ petition by which the said meeting was requisitioned by the three councillors as aforesaid.
( 14 ) MR. Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the request for convening a special requisition meeting for the said purpose at the instance of five councillors out of 22 councillors does not satisfy the condition as laid down in Rule 9 (3) (b) of the West Bengal Municipal (Pro and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1995 which
