1999 Supreme(Raj) 1250
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Shivaraj V.Patil, M.A.A.Khan, JJ.
Yogesh Chandra Saini & Ors - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan anr Ors - Respondent
D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.794, 799, 800 and 801 of 1998.
Decided On : 15-07-1999
For the Appellant:Mr. Marudhar Mridul, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Sanjay Pareek, Mr. A.K. Sharma, Mr. S.P. Sharma and Mr. R.S. Rathore, Advocate.
For the State:Mr. S.M. Mehta, Advocate General with Mr. M. Rafiq, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. C.K. Garg, Sr. Advocate. assisted by mr. Gopal Garg and Mr. Rajkumar, Mr. J.S. Rastogi, Mrs. Naina Saraf and Mr. Santosh Kaushik, Advocates.
For the Caveatro:Mr. N.K. Joshi, Advocate.
The proviso denying the right to vote in the meetings of the Municipality applied only to persons having special knowledge or experience in local administration and not to MLAs and MPs.
Headnote:
The Rajasthan Municipalities (Second Amendment) Act, 1994 amended the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 to provide for the representation of certain categories of persons in Municipalities. The amendment included a proviso that persons having special knowledge or experience in local administration shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of the Municipality. The issue before the Court was whether the proviso also applied to Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and Members of Parliament (MPs) who were also given representation in the Municipalities. The Court held that the proviso applied only to persons having special knowledge or experience in local administration and not to MLAs and MPs. The Court found that the Legislature had sufficient grounds for making this distinction and that there was no ambiguity or omission in the language of the amendment. The Court also held that MLAs and MPs had a right to vote in meetings of the Municipalities convened for the purpose of considering a No Confidence Motion against the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were duly elected Chairpersons/Vice Chairpersons of their respective Municipal Boards/Councils in Rajasthan. No Confidence Motions were passed against them in their respective Municipalities, and they were removed from their offices. They challenged the legality and validity of the No Confidence Motions on the ground that notices of the meetings were not given to the MLAs and MPs representing the relevant areas of the Municipalities, as required by the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence against Chairman or Vice Chairman) Rules, 1974 (the No Confidence Motion Rules).
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the proviso denying the right to vote in the meetings of the Municipality applied only to persons having special knowledge or experience in local administration and not to MLAs and MPs. The Court found that the Legislature had sufficient grounds for making this distinction and that there was no ambiguity or omission in the language of the amendment. The Court also held that MLAs and MPs had a right to vote in meetings of the Municipalities convened for the purpose of considering a No Confidence Motion against the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson.
Issues: Whether the proviso denying the right to vote in the meetings of the Municipality applied to MLAs and MPs.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the Legislature had sufficient grounds for making a distinction between persons having special knowledge or experience in local administration and MLAs and MPs in terms of their right to vote in meetings of the Municipality. The Court also found that there was no ambiguity or omission in the language of the amendment that would warrant extending the proviso to MLAs and MPs.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals and quashed the No Confidence Motions passed against the appellants. The Court also prohibited the Respondents from giving effect to the No Confidence Motions and directed the Collector, Dausa, to cease making directions and decisions in respect to the emergent business of the Municipal Board, Bandikui.
JUDGMENT
1. - These four Special Appeals under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 are directed against the common judgment and order dated 15.5.1998 by which a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants. In their writ petitions, the appellants had challenged the legality and validity of the actions of the respondents in carrying out 'NO CONFIDENCE MOTION' against them and removing them from the offices of Chair Persons/Vice Chair Person, which they were legally holding in their respective Municipal Boards/Councils at the relevant time.
2. We heard all the four appeals together and now decide them by this common order. This order shall be placed on the record of D.B. Civil Appeal (Writs) No. 794/98 - Yogesh Chandra Saini v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , and a copy thereof shall be placed on the record of each of the remaining three appeals.
3. Shorn of unnecessary and avoidable details, the facts relevant to and sufficient for the disposal of these appeals, may be shortly stated as under:-
[1] D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 794/98
4. Yogesh Chandra Saini, the appellant in this appeal, had been holding the office of and working as the duly elected Chairperson (President) of the Municipal Council, Alwar, since 1994. A `Motion of No Confidence' was made against him and passed by two- third majority of the whole number of members of the Council at its meeting held on 12.4.1997. He challenged the relevant Resolution of the Council dated 12.4.1997 on the ground, inter alia, that notice of the meeting, convened for the purpose by the Collector, Alwar, was not given to "every member" of the council, as required by sub-rule (2) of R. 3 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence against Chairman or Vice Chairman) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as `the No Confidence Motion Rules') r/w Section 9 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short `the Act of 1959') and, Art. 243-R of the Constitution of India (hereinafter, `the Constitution').
5. In main, his contention was that notice of the afore-mentioned meeting dated 12.4.1997 was not given to the Members of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly (M.L.As.) and the Members of the House of People (M.Ps.), who were representing in the Municipal Council, Alwar, their respective constituencies, which comprised, wholly or partly, the area of such Municipal Council.[2] D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 799/98 and [4] D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 801/98
6. Both these appeals arise out of the same facts. They are, therefore, taken together for narration of the relevant facts.
7. Prakash Chand Saini (appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 799/98) and Smt. Laxmi Devi (appellant in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 801/98) were the duly elected Chairperson and Vice Chairperson respectively of the Municipal Board, Kotputli in Jaipur District. By adopting two separate `No Confidence Motions' against them in its meetings, convened for the purpose on 23rd and 24th days of September 1997, the Municipal Board required them to vacate their respective offices. By filing almost identically worded separate writ petitions u/Art. 226 of the Constitution before this Court, the two appellants challenged the relevant `No Confidence Motions' passed against them, on the grounds, inter alia, that the notice of the meetings was not given to the M.L.As. and the M.Ps. representing the relevant areas of the Municipal Board, Kotputli in their respective constituencies and hence, the resolutions adopted against them were illegal and ineffective qua their rights to hold their respective statutory offices.[3] D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 800/98
8. The facts of this appeal are a bit different from those in the three other appeals, though the question of law which was considered and adjudicated upon by the learned Single Judge was very much the same as it was there in the other three matters.
9. In this appeal, Radhey Shyam (appellant) was the duly elected Chai
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
