The period of disqualification under Section 18 (3) of the Delhi Administration Act, 1966, commences from the date of the meeting from which a member absents himself.

Headnote:
MEMBERSHIP - METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OF DELHI - VACANCY - ABSENCE FROM MEETINGS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 18 (3) OF THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION ACT, 1966 - PERIOD OF DISQUALIFICATION - COMMENCEMENT - COURT'S INTERFERENCE WITH INTERNAL MANAGEMENT OF THE COUNCIL - MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT - SANCTITY OF DECISIONS TAKEN IN CERTAIN MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL BY WRONGLY EXCLUDING THE PETITIONER.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a member of the Metropolitan Council of Delhi, challenged the proposed resolution to declare his seat vacant under Section 18 (3) of the Delhi Administration Act, 1966, for being absent from all meetings of the Council for more than six successive months. The petitioner argued that the period of six successive months should commence from the date of the meeting from which he absented himself, while the respondents contended that it should be calculated from the date of the last meeting he attended.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the period of disqualification under Section 18 (3) of the Delhi Administration Act, 1966, commences from the date of the meeting from which a member absents himself. The court found that the petitioner had attended the meeting on 30th December 1968, and therefore, he could not be said to have incurred the disqualification within Section 18 (3).
Issues: 1. Whether the period of disqualification under Section 18 (3) of the Delhi Administration Act, 1966, commences from the date of the meeting from which a member absents himself or from the date of the last meeting he attended? 2. Whether the court should interfere with the internal management of the Council and stay the proposed resolution to declare the petitioner's seat vacant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 18 (3) of the Delhi Administration Act, 1966, and held that the period of disqualification commences from the date of the meeting from which a member absents himself. The court relied on the plain meaning of the words "absent from all meetings thereof" in the section and found support from case law, such as Mcconnell's Claim, (1901) 1 Ch D 728, which held that the absence must be voluntary and not accidental and that the period of absence begins to run from the first meeting which the member fails to attend. 2. The court held that it has the jurisdiction to interfere with the internal management of the Council when mandatory provisions of an Act are being violated. The court found that the proposed resolution to declare the petitioner's seat vacant was in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 18 (3) of the Delhi Administration Act, 1966, and therefore, it was necessary to intervene to prevent the wrong from being done.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and issued a writ, order, or direction directing the respondents not to move and/or the resolution removing the petitioner from the membership of the Metropolitan Council on the ground that he absented himself from the meetings held between 16th September 1968 and 20th September 1968.

S. K. KAPUR

( 1 ) MEMBERSHIP of the petitioner of the Metropolitan Council of Delhi constituted under the Delhi Administration Act, 1966 (Act No. 19 of 1966), at stake. The petition is being disposed of on admitted tacts. On 2nd January, 1969, when the motion for issue of rule nisi was heard, the learned counsel agreed that the matter may be decided on the interpretation of Sec. 18 of the said Act, In the order dated 2nd January, 1969, while admitting the writ petition, this Court recorded:

"the learned counsel agree that the entire matter turns on the interpretation of Section 18 (3 ). Mr. Daphtary says that in the circumstances no counter-affidavit is necessary. The said undisputed facts are that the petitioner is a member of the Metropolitan Council; that the petitioner contested the election as a Congress nominee and has all along been the Secretary of the Congress Party in the Council; that at present the party position in the Council is Jan Sangh Party 35 seats; Congress Party 21 seats; and Independents 5 seats; that a session of the Council was held from 20th March, 1968, to 8th April, 1968, and the petitioner attended all those sittings of the Council; that after 8th April, 1968, the Council was prorogued sine die by the Administrator, Delhi; that on 17th August, 1968, the petitioner left tor United States of America on the invitation of Farmers and World Affairs, Incorporated in U. S. A. and returned to Delhi from abroad on 7th October, 1968; that on 1st September, 1886, the Administrator summoned the Metropolitan Council to meet and the Council did meet from 16th September, 1968, to 20th September, 1968; that the petitioner being absent during these days, did not attend any of the sittings; that the Metropolitan Council was again summoned to meet and did meet on 30th December 1968; that this meeting was attended by the petitioner; and that on 29th December, 1968, the petitioner received a copy of list of business of the Council for Monday, the 30th December, 1968, the 7th item of which list was a resolution proposed to be moved by the Chief Executive Councillor, Shri Vijay Kumar Malhotra reading under:

"7. Motion: Shri Vijay Kumar Malhotra to move the following: "under Section 18 (3) of the Delhi Administration Act, 1966, read with R. 133 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Metropolitan Council, I beg to move that Shri Y. P. Singh, Member, Metropolitan Council, having remained absent, without permission, for more than six successive months, from all meetings of the Council, viz. , during the period 9th April, 1968 to 29th December, 1968 his seat be declared vacant. ". The petitioner moved this petition impugning me validity of the proposed resolution. It is alleged that in the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 18 (3) does not disqualify the petitioner from continuing as a member or entitle the respondents to declare vacant the petitioner s seat in the Council in exercise of the power under the said provision of the Act on the ground that he did not attend the meetings of the Council held between 16th September, 1968 and 20th September, 1968. The entire case turns on the interpretation of Section 18 (3) of the said Act. Some of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules may now be read.

( 2 ) SECTION 11 provides

" (1) The Administrator shall from time to time, summon the Metropolitan Council to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session.

(2) The Administrator may, from time to time. (a) prorogue the Metropolitan Council; (b) with the approval of the President, dissolve the Metropolitan Council. " Section 18 (3) reads "if during a period of six successive months, a member is, without permission of the Metropolitan Council, absent from all meetings thereof, the Metropolitan Council may declare his seat vacant. " Section 26 shuts out the inquiry

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1969 Supreme(Del) 12

High Court Of DelhiV.P.SINGH - AppellantVersusCHAIRMAN, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OF DELHI - RespondentDecided On : 01/10/1969

The period of disqualification under Section 18 (3) of the Delhi Administration Act, 1966, commences from the date of the meeting from which a member absents himself.

Judicial Analysis

High Court Of Delhi
V.P.SINGH - Appellant
Versus
CHAIRMAN, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OF DELHI - Respondent
Decided On : 01/10/1969