Dave, J. —This is a writ application by Ganga Dutt under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India The petitioner is Vice-Chairman of the Municipal Board at Nokha, which consists of 10 members. Non-petitioner No. 1, Bhagwan Das Taparia, is the Chairman of the said Municipal Board.

2. The petitioners case is that a special meeting of the Nokha Municipal Board was held on 1.6.57 and a resolution expressing want of confidence in the chairman, namely non-petitioner No. 1, was passed by a majority of six members. Within two months of the said resolution, another special meeting of the Board was held on 23-8 57 and this time also, another motion of no-confidence in non-petitioner No. 1 was passed by 5 members. Both these resolution having been passed under sec. 22 (9) of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act No. 23 of 1951 (which will hereafter be referred as the Act) non-petitioner No. 1 should be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith, but in actual fact he did not vacate his office and was still working as Chairman. It has been prayed that there being no alternative, adequate or efficacious remedy, a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order should be issued against the Chairman. It should be declared that he has ceased to be Chairman of the Board from 23.8.57, when the second no-confidence motion was passed against him, and that he should be restrained from working as Chairman of the Municipal Board at Nokha.

3. Non-petitioner No. 1 has not denied the fact that some members of the Nokha Municipal Board (which will hereafter be referred as the Board) did hold meetings on 11.6.57 and 23.8.1957, but it is contended by him that both these meetings were illegal, since they were convened in contravention of the provisions of law. It has been further urged that the petitioner and a few other members, who are not on good terms with non-petitioner No. 1, had held a similar meeting on 1-7 57, which was also contrary to law and that this fact has been knowingly suppressed by the petitioner. It is further stated that non-petitioner No, 1 called a special meeting according to the proper procedure on 22.8.57 and on that day, the motion of no-confidence in non-petitioner No. 1 was put. to vote, but it was defeated. According to non-petitioner No. 1, the petitioner and his associates could not hold a meeting for these same purposes on 23.8.57 according to law and that the meeting of 23.8.57 was therefore illegal. He has prayed that since the petitioner has knowingly suppressed the information about the meetings of 1.7.57 and 22.8.57 and since the meetings of 11-6 57 and 23.8.57 were not in accordance with law the application must be dismissed with costs.

4. The questions which thus arise for determination are—

(1) whether the meeting held on 11.6.57, and 23.8.57 were according to law, and

(2) whether no-confidence motions passed in the said two meetings were in order and non-petitioner No. 1 should be deemed to have vacated his office on 23.8.57 according to sec. 22(9) (b) of the Act ?

5. It is common ground between the parties that both the meetings of 11.6.57 and 23.8.57 were called by the petitioner and not by the con-petitioner No. 1, before entering into the question of the validity of the resolutions passed in these meetings, it would be proper to point out what is the proper procedure laid down by law for calling such meetings. The relevant part of sec. 26 of the Act which lays down that procedure runs as follows :—

"Sec. 26—The following provisions shallbe observed with respect to the meetings of a Municipal Board :—

(1) There shall be held an ordinary general meeting in each month for the disposal of general business. It shall be the duty of the Chairman to fix the dates for all ordinary general meetings.

(2) The Chairman may, whenever he thinks fit, and shall upon the written request of not less than one-third of the whole number of members and for a date not more than fifteen days after the presentation of such re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document