The provisions of Rule 9 of the West Bengal Municipal Authorities (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1995 are directory in nature and the right of the Councillors to convene a meeting does not end on the expiry of 29 days from the date of requisition.

S.B. Sinha, J.

In this writ application the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the resolution dated 17.8.98 adopted by the respondents no. 4 to 13.

2. The petitioner was the Chairman of Dhulian Municipality. A notice for convening a meeting for removing him was issued by 1/3rd of the Councillors. As neither the petitioner nor the Vice-Chairman convened the meeting, the meeting was convened by the Councillors who had requisitioned therefor. The said notice convening the meeting was questioned by the petitioner by filing a writ application before this court which was marked as W.P. No. 12320 (W) of 1998. Admittedly, in the said writ application, an interim order of status quo was passed by a learned Judge of this court on 10.7.1998 and the same continued upto 29.7.98. The matter was taken up for hearing by Samanta, J. and the writ application was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner served a notice which is to the following effect :-

"In view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta dated 29.7.98 passed by Mr. Justice Prabir Kumar Samanta and in view of provision made under section 13(3) of West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 read with rule 9(3)(c) of West Bengal Municipalities (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1995, all concerned are hereby intimated that the District Magistrate, Murshidabad is the appropriate authority to act upon the Notice dated 25.6.98 signed by 10 (ten) Councillors due to efflux of time in terms of 9(3)(b) of West Bengal Municipalities (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1995."

3. The said notice is contained in annexure 'C' to the present writ application. Admittedly, such a notice is not contemplated under the provisions of West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 or West Bengal Municipal Authorities (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1995 hereinafter referred to as the "said Rules". A meeting was thereafter convened by the requisitioning Councillors and by reason of the impugned resolution petitioner was removed from the post of Chairman of the said Municipality.

4. Mr. Manna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, principally raised three contentions in support of the application. The learned Counsel submits that in terms of section 18(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 the Chairman of a Municipality can be removed only in terms of the procedure and the conduct of business in a special meeting. The learned Counsel points out that such conduct of business has been provided for in the West Bengal Municipal Authorities (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1995. The learned Counsel referred to the provisions of Rule 9(3)(b) and submits that keeping in view the fact that Samanta, J, did not direct holding of a meeting on the basis of the old requisition, and the period of 29 days, as provided for therein, was over, the impugned meeting was liable to be held as illegal. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the representative of the Government having presided over the meeting, the meeting must be held to be invalid, keeping in view the provisions of Rule 9(3)(c) or also Rule 72(d) of the said Rules. In support of his aforementioned contention the learned Counsel placed strong reliance to the decision of a single Judge of this court in the case of Tafiluddin Ahmed & Ors. vs. State reported in 1994 (1) CLJ, 193 and Jardar Khan vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana, Page 249.

5. Mr. Kalyan Kr. Bandopadhyay, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, pointed out that the provisions of Rule 9 are directory in nature. According to the learned Counsel, right of the Councillors to convene the meeting does not end on the expiry of 29 days from the date of requisition, as has been contended by Mr. Manna. In support of such contention, Mr. Bandopadhyay has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this court