1. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 14.8.2002 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the conclusion arrived at by the respondent No.3 (Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Suratgarh) in the meeting held on 3.7.2002 treating the motion of No Confidence against respondent No.4 (Hardeo Sahay) as having dropped be declared illegal and it may be declared that the motion of No confidence against respondent No.4 (Hardeo Sahay) stood carried out in terms of Rule 3(9) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence against Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1974 and the respondent No.4 (Harden Sahay) be ordered to be ousted from the office of Chairperson, Municipal Board, Suratgarh with all consequential directions inter alia holding of fresh election of Chairperson etc. and further it may be declared that the seats of respondents No.5 (Om Prakash) and respondent No.6 (Vali Mohd.) stood vacated on 27.3.2001 and they may be declared to have ceased to be members of Municipal Board, Suratgarh on 27.3.2001 and further it may be declared that the number of respondents No.5 (Om Prakash) and 6 (Vali Mohd.) could not be counted for computing fraction of ⅔rd majority of whole total number of members of Municipal Board, Suratgarh for the purpose of carrying out the motion of No Confidence against respondent No.4 (Hardeo Sahay)

2. The facts of the,case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:

i) That elections to the Municipal Board, Suratgarh were held in the month of Nov., 1999. The petitioner contested the election from Ward No. 22 and was elected as member, Municipal Board, Suratgarh from the said ward.

ii) That initially Shri Purkha Ram Valmiki was elected as Chairperson of the Municipal Board, Suratgarh but a motion of no confidence was passed against him in the meeting held in the month of March, 2001.

iii) That thereafter Shri Hardeo Sahay (respondent No.4) was elected as Chairperson of Municipal Board, Suratgarh in the month of May, 2001.

iv) That the activities of Shri Hardeo Sahay (respondent No.4) were not in the interest of the Municipal Board and, therefore, the petitioner along with 25 elected members of the Municipal Board submitted a motion of no confidence against respondent No.4 (Harden Sahay) to the Collector, Sri Ganganagar (respondent No.2)

v) That the Collector, Sri Gangangar (respondent No.2) vide his order dated 20.6.2002, convened meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence on 3.7.2002. A copy of notice issued to the petitioner on 20.6.2002 is marked as Annex. 1.

vi) That the meeting for consideration of motion of No Confidence was held on 3.7.2002 and in all 26 members attended the same meeting which included respondents No.5 (Om Prakash) and respondent No.6 (Vali Mohd.).

vii) That the motion was put to discussions and after completion of discussions, same was put to vote. Out of 25 elected members, and one ex-officio member, 23 members exercised their right of franchise and 21 voters polled in favour of motion of No Confidence.

viii) That respondent No.3 (Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Suratgarh) declared the motion as dropped as having not been carried by ⅔rd of whole number of members of the Municipal Board, Suratgarh. A copy of proceedings dated 3.7.2002 is marked as Annex.2.

ix) That the further case of the petitioner is that the Municipal Board, Suratgarh had 30 elected members. In addition to 30 elected members, Smt. Vijaya Laxmi is ex-officio member in her capacity as Member, Legislative Assembly. The respondents No.5 (Om Prakash) and respondent No.6 (Vali Mod.) were nominated as members, Municipal Board, Suratgarh by notification of the State Government dated 24.10.2000 (Annex.3).

x) That it is further submitted by the petitioner that since respondent No.5 (Om Prakash) and respondent No.6 (Vali Mohd.) were not elected members of the Municipal Board, Suratgarh, therefore, they could not