Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.N.Divecha
PUSHPENDRA C.SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
NAGSHI MALSHI MATANG - Respondent
S.C.A. 3125 of 1995
Decided On : 07/11/1995
Section 51 (2) of the Act requires President to call a meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion agasint him within 15 days from the date of receipt of a valid requisition in that regard. The requisition made by 23 councillors on 22nd March 1995 was a valid requisition. The no confidence motion was required to be considered as expeditiously as possible. This was with a view to avoiding any horse-trading activity as is popoularly known in the world of politics. It cannot be left to the sweet will of the president to call a meeting at any time he likes. As aforesaid, the term of the elected president of a municipality is one year. If no time-limit for holding a meeting is fixed, the president may call a meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion against him after expiry of the tem of his office. This would be contrary to the parliamentary system of democracy which our country has adopted even at the grass-root level. Examining the aforesaid statutory provision contained in Section 51 (2) of the Municipalities Act in this light, there is no escape from the conclusion that the meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion against the president of a municipality has to be held within 15 days from the date of receipt of a valid requisition in that regard. The meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion for the purposes of Section 51 (2) of the Municipalities Act was required to be held by the president within 15 days from the date of receipt of the requisition in that regard. As provided in Section 51 (3) thereof, such meeting could have been convened by giving three days clear notice. He ought to have therefore issued a notice for convening the meeting latest by 6th April 1995 as the valid requisition was received on 22nd March, 1995. The notice in that regard could have been issued latest by 3rd April, 1995. Since the meeting was not held by 6th April, 1995 for consideration of the no confidence motion, in my humble opinion, the Vice-President was justified in issuing a notice on 7th April, 1995 for holdig the meeting for the Purpose on 15th April, 1995. The act of the Vice-President in that regard was perfectly legal and valid. In that view of the matter, the holding of the meeting on 15th April, 1995 for consideration of the no confidence motion against the petitioner as the the president of the municipality was also quite legal and valid. The resolution passed thereat cannot be said to be tainted with any illegality or invalidity.
[Paras 8 & 13]
Words & Phrase - "To call meeting" - Context - Is equated to hold meeting - Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 - Secs. 32(1) & 51(2).
[See Para 7]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Municipality - No confidence resolution passed against President - Validity - Findings not perverse - Held, Court cannot sit in appeal under Art. 226 to upset a valid resolution.
Since the total number of councillors of the municipality was 42 at the relevant time, the resolution passed by 28 members would certainly constitute its two-third majority. This court obviously does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Collector who is a fact finding authority. Besides, the decision contained at Annexure D to this petition is on the basis of scrutiny of the material on record. The finding contained therein cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. Such finding cannot be upset in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
[Para 14]
( 1 ) ). Can the President of a municipality invested with powers to call a special general meeting on requisition for consideration of a no-confidence motion against him call a meeting after a considerable lapse of time ? Can be term "to call" a meeting be equated with the term "to hold" a meeting for the purpose of consideration of the no- confidence motion more particularly against the President of a municipality ? These are the basic questions arising in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
( 2 ) ). The factual backdrop giving rise to this petition may be examined. The municipality involved in this case is the one at Gandhidham. The petitioner was elected as its President with effect from 13/01/1995. Our country has adopted the democratic set-up even for governance of local affairs. The affairs of a municipality constituted under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 ("the municipalities Act" for brief) are also managed by an elected body. The President and the Vice-President thereof are elected at the first meeting to be held after elections of municipal councillors as provided in Sec. 32 thereof. The term of office of such elected President is for a period of one year. Such elected person as the president of the concerned Municipality will be the leader of the majority party or most elected councillors. He has, therefore, to enjoy the confidence of the municipal councillors or a majority of them not only at the time of his election but has to continue to enjoy such confidence during his term as the President thereof. If at any point of time he loses confidence of the requisite majority of Municipal councillors, he has to vacate his office as its President. In that regard provisions are made for bringing no-confidence motion. In order to see that anybody or everybody may not bring a motion of no-confidence for its own sake, some stringent provisions have been laid down. As provided in Sec. 51 (2) of the Municipalities act, such motion of no-confidence has to be by means of a written request of not less than the one-third of the councillors of the concerned Municipality. This statutory provision refers to the no-confidence motion against the President as well as the vice-President. Since the no-confidence motion in this case is against the petitioner as the President of the Municipality at Gandhidham, the statutory provision pertaining to that office only will be considered. On receipt of a written request in that regard, the President of the municipality is required to call a special general meeting on a day not later than 15 days after the presentation of such request. It has further been provided that, in case the President fails to do so, the Vice-President shall call such meeting on a day not later than 30 days after the presentation of such request. The municipality at Gandhidham consists of total 42 councillors. Twentythree councillors thereof made a written request on 22/03/1995 for calling a special general meeting for considering a motion of no-confidence against the president. Further, requisition from 7 more councillors in that regard was received on 31/03/1995. On that very day the petitioner issued a notice for calling a meeting for the said purpose to be held on 28/07/1995. A copy of the circular in that regard is at Annexure A to this petition. It appears that the Vice-President of the Gandhidham Nagarpalika took the view that the petitioner had to hold the meeting within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the written request from the councillors and, since it was not held within 15 days from the date of such written request, he issued a notice on 7/04/1995 for holding a special general meeting on 15/04/1995 for consideration of the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. A copy of the notice together with the agenda is at Annexure b to this petition. The special general meeting as called by the Vice President thereof was held on 15/04/1995. In that me
SupremeToday
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
