IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that only one Requisition is required for convening a special meeting for removal of the Chairman, and the Vice-Chairman automatically assumes jurisdiction if the Chairman fails to act on the Requisition within the specified time frame.

JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The appellants before us are the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Darjeeling Municipality. The appellants are aggrieved by an order passed by the First Court dated 26.12.2022 in a writ petition filed by the appellants. The writ petition of the appellants was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the writ petition was devoid of merit.

2. The writ petition was filed by the appellants for a direction on the respondents in the writ petition for restraining a meeting convened on 28.12.2022 for removal of the Chairman (writ petitioner no. 1/ appellant no. 1). The private respondent nos. 6 – 21 before this Court are the Councillors of the Darjeeling Municipality, who requisitioned the meeting dated 28.12.2022 for removing the Chairman / appellant no. 1.

3. According to the appellants, the Resolution dated 28.12.2022 taken by the Councillors of the Darjeeling Municipality is contrary to the provisions of The West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 read with The West Bengal Municipalities (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1995. Counsel submits that the learned Single Judge misconstrued the provisions in the Act and the Rules and erred in dismissing the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the District Magistrate and Sub-divisional Officer, which is the conducting authority for the process of removal under the Act, supports the impugned order and submits that the Councillors took the correct statutory approach for removing the Chairman / appellant no. 1 from the said post of the Darjeeling Municipality. Counsel further submits that the Chairman was removed on 28.12.2022 and the vacancy for the post has now been notified under Rule 5 of the 1995 Rules.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents / the 15 Councillors submits that the Requisition carried by the Councillors for removal of the Chairman was done in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act and the Rules and that there is no infirmity in the order impugned before us.

6. The procedure which was challenged by the appellants / writ petitioners in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge relates to the removal of the Chairman of the Darjeeling Municipality which is provided under section 18 of The West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. Section 18 of the said Act sets out the manner by which the Chairman shall cease to hold office. Under section 18(3), the Chairman may be removed from office by a Resolution carried by a majority of the total number of elected members of the Board of Councillors holding office for the time being at a special meeting to be called for this purpose and in the manner prescribed namely upon a Requisition made in writing by not less than 1/3rd of the total number of elected Members of the Board of Councillors.

7. Section 18 has to be read in conjunction with Rule 9 of The West Bengal Municipalities (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1995. Rule 9(3)(b) provides for calling of a special meeting after giving no less than 3 days’ notice to the members on a Requisition specifically containing the agenda and signed by not less than 1/3rd of the total number of Councillors of the Municipality. The special meeting is to be convened by the Chairman within 15 days from the date of receipt of such Requisition (Rule 9(3)(b)(i)) or on his failure by the Vice-Chairman within 7 days thereafter (Rule 9(3)(b)(ii)) or any of the three Councillors of the Municipality within a further 7 days thereafter (Rule 9(3)(b)(iii)).

8. The issue before the learned Judge was whether a fresh Requisition was required to be made before the Vice-Chairman if the Chairman fails to convene a meeting after receiving the Requisition under Rule 9(3)(b)(i)). The learned Judge was of the view that the Vice-Chairman can act upon the Requisition made to the Chairman on the failure of the Chairman to convene a meeting under Rule 9(3)(b)(i)). In other words, the learned Judge was of the view that no fre