The court emphasized the validity of the subsequent No-Confidence Motion and the legality of the procedure adopted for the floor test in accordance with the law.

Judgment

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.—These two writ petitions arising out of similar action of respondents are proposed to be disposed of by a common order.

2. The decision qua the post of President of Municipal Council, Baramulla, becoming vacant on account of support of majority of the Councilors to the No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner and subsequent decision that the Vice President of the Council will function as acting President of Municipal Council, Baramulla, till the post of President is filled up through election process, notified in terms of notification/order No. MC/Bla/2020/2644-48 dated 09.01.2021, issued by respondent No. 5, is questioned in the instant petition on the ground as detailed out, with particular reference that the respondent No. 5, has no power/authority to entertain the No-Confidence Motion, which motion was already withdrawn by the majority of the Councilors.

3. Mr. Javid Ahmad Kawoosa, learned Senior counsel, while reiterating the grounds challenging the notification impugned was asked as to what is the need for filing the writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 230/2021, subsequent to the instant one, submitted that the impugned action stands withdrawn and by treating the earlier motion as withdrawn. Subsequent No-Confidence Motion is processed by the respondent Director, Local Urban Bodies, Kashmir, Srinagar-respondent No. 4, on the communication dated 21.01.2021, of the respondent No. 5, seeking guidance on the subject, the respondent No. 4, vide communication dated 09.02.2021, directed the respondent No. 5, to adopt the course of action in tune with the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir, Municipal Act, 2000 and as per legal opinion furnished by Associate Law Officer and the respondent No. 5, acting upon the instructions of respondent No. 4, entertained the No-Confidence Motion dated 21.01.2021 and notified the schedule for conduct of special meeting of the Councilors on 17.02.2021, for discussion for vote of No-Confidence against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has questioned the subsequent action of respondents in WP(C) No. 230/2021.

4. In view of statement made by Mr. J. A. Kawoosa, learned senior counsel, supported by the counsels appearing for the respondents, the writ petition WP(C) No. 52/2021, being rendered infructuous, as such, shall stand dismissed, accordingly.

5. The petitioner in petition WP(C) No. 230/2021, has questioned the instruction, issued by the respondent No. 4, in terms of communication dated 09.02.2021, asking the respondent No. 5, to proceed in the matter of No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of J&K, Municipal Act, 2000, and in accordance with the opinion of Associate Law Officer and the communication bearing No. MC/Bla/G/2021/2964-66 dated 12.02.2021, in terms whereof the respondent No. 5, has notified the schedule for discussion of No-Confidence Motion, against the petitioner on 17.02.2021 as also the communication informing the President, the schedule, date, time and venue for No-Confidence Motion against him, on the following grounds;

i. That the so-called No-Confidence Motion allegedly moved against the petitioner is not maintainable in terms of Section 25 of the Act reads as under:

25. Motion of no confidence against President or Vice-President.

(1) A motion of no confidence against the President or Vice-President, may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the rules.

(2) where a notice of intention to move a resolution requiring the President or Vice-President of the municipality to vacate his office, signed by not less than majority of its total elected members is given and if a motion of no-confidence is carried by a resolution passed by a majority of elected members present and voting at its general or special meeting, the quorum of which is not less than one-half of its total elected members, the President or the Vice-President against whom such resolution is passed shall cease to hold office Fo