ORDER :- The Municipal Board of Farrukhabad - Fatehgarh consists of 25 members. The petitioner, Dr. B. N. Sarin, was its President and accordingly, an ex officio member of it. On September 9, 1966, a resolution of no-confidence was passed against him. He says that the resolution is illegal and ineffective inasmuch as the meeting of the Municipal Board in which it was passed was convened illegally.

2. His contention is founded on the circumstance that no notice of the meeting was ever sent to him. The meeting convened without notice even to a single member is illegal. He has sought to support his contention by authorities : W. Smyth v. H. F. Darley, (1849) 9 ER 1293. Dobson v. Fussy, (1831) 131 E.R. 117 Young v. Ladies Imperial Club, 1920-2 KB 523, Radha Kishan Jaikishan v. Municipal Committee Khandwa, AIR 1934 P.C. 62, Hari Dutt Bahuguna v. State of U. P., Civil Misc. Writ No. 2427 of 1959 D/- 19-11-1959 by Tandon J. (All.) and K. N. Misra v. Chancellor. University of Allahabad, Civil Misc. Writ No. 1501 of 1965 D/- 3-12-1967 : (AIR 1967 All. 107).

3. Respondents admit that no notice of the meeting was sent to him. But their contention is that he had full knowledge of the date, time, place and purpose of the meeting and that accordingly the omission to send a notice of the meeting to him is not a material consideration. They also say that as he had full knowledge of the meeting and wilfully abstained from attending the meeting, he should not be permitted to challenge the resolution of no-confidence for want of notice only. For this purpose they rely on a decision of Mr. Justice B. N. Nigam in Radhey Shyam Maheshowari v. District Magistrate Hardoi, Civil Misc. Writ No. 50 of 1966 D/- 28-1-1966 (All.)

4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in similar circumstances Mr. Justice Tandon has held in his judgment referred to earlier that the President was not "disentitled" from challenging the resolution of no-confidence for want of notice to him. It is also said that in the circumstances of the case the petitioner was under no obligation to take notice of the meeting and attend it. In support of this argument he relies on 62 C. J. S. 754, 9 Halsubury's Laws of England. Third Edition. 46, and Societe Generate De Paris v. Tramways Union Co. Ltd., (1884) 14 QBD 424.

5. I shall first take up the question whether in spite of want of notice the petitioner was aware of the date, time, place and purpose of the meeting. The motion of no-confidence against the petitioner was presented by certain members of the Municipal Board to the District Magistrate on August 9, 1966. The District Magistrate made a direction on August 19 that notices of the meeting should be sent to all the members. He had also directed that a copy of the notice should be sent to the President Municipal Board for information and displaying on the notice board of the Board's office. Copies were also to be sent to the Tahsildar Farrukhabad, Mukhya Adhikari Zila Parishad, Nazir Sadar, the information Officer and the Station Officer, Kotwali, Farrukhabad for publicity, Mazhar Husain Khan, Local Bodies Clerk, Collectorate, Farrukhabad, has stated in his counter-affidavit that copies were sent to the various officers on August, 24. The copy meant for the President of the Municipal Board was sent to the Tehsildar, Sadar Farrukhabad for transmission to the former. The rejoinder affidavit includes a letter from the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board to the President stating what it was found from office enquiry and examination of the receipt register that no copy of the notice of the meeting was received in the Municipal office from the District Magistrate or any other authority and that there was, therefore, no question of its pasting on the notice-Board for publication. So the fact of the sending of any copy of the notice to the president of the Municipal Board is not free from doubt but there seems to be little doubt that the copies of the notice were sent t