Back
1995 Supreme(MP) 806
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
U. L. BHAT, S. K. DUBEY, V. K. AGRAWAL
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH LOCAL SELF GOVT.DEPTT., BHOPAL - Appellant
Versus
BENI PD.RATHORE - Respondents
L. P. A. 8 Of 1995
Decided On : 09/15/1995
ANUP CHOUDHARY, L.S.BAGHEL, N.C.JAIN, R.S.JHA
The interpretation of statutory provisions relating to the presiding officer of a meeting of a Municipal Council and the requirement to record the names of Councillors in the minutes of a meeting.
Headnote:
MUNICIPAL LAW - NO CONFIDENCE MOTION - PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT - PRESIDING OFFICER - MINUTES OF MEETING - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - MANDATORY OR DIRECTORY - SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE.
Fact of the Case:
A meeting was convened to consider no-confidence motions against the President and Vice President of a Municipal Council. The Vice President was present but did not preside over the meeting, and a Councillor was elected to preside instead. The motions were passed with a majority of 23 votes in favor, but the minutes of the meeting did not record the names of the Councillors who voted.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Vice President's failure to preside over the meeting did not invalidate the proceedings, as the President was absent and the Vice President was not prepared to preside. The Court also held that the requirement to record the names of Councillors in the minutes was directory, not mandatory, and that substantial compliance with the requirement was sufficient. In this case, there was substantial compliance because there was no dispute that the motions received the required majority.
Issues: 1. Whether the Vice President's failure to preside over the meeting invalidated the proceedings. 2. Whether the failure to record the names of Councillors in the minutes invalidated the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the statutory provisions relating to the presiding officer of a meeting of the Municipal Council. The Court held that the provisions were mandatory, but that they should be interpreted in a practical and realistic manner. The Court found that the Vice President's failure to preside over the meeting was not a violation of the mandatory provisions, as he was not prepared to preside and the Councillors were justified in electing another Councillor to preside. 2. The Court interpreted the statutory provision requiring the minutes of a meeting to include the names of Councillors who voted. The Court held that the provision was directory, not mandatory, and that substantial compliance with the requirement was sufficient. The Court found that there was substantial compliance in this case because there was no dispute that the motions received the required majority.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the findings of the learned single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.
( 1 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 herein who are Municipal Councillors, were elected as President and Vice President respectively at the election held on 12-2-1995. 12 Councillors gave requisition for moving resolution expressing no confidence in them. The Chief Municipal Officer convened a meeting on 6-5-1995 for consideration of the motions. The President was absent at the meeting, but the Vice President was present. The Councillors unanimously elected third appellant, one among the Councillors, to preside over the meeting. Resolutions expressing no confidence in the President and Vice President respectively were taken up separately for consideration and both the resolutions were passed in the presence of 29 Councillors, 23 Councillors voting in favour of the resolutions. The President and Vice President jointly filed the writ petition challenging the legality of the resolutions on the ground that proceedings were illegal inasmuch as the Vice President ought to have presided and the Councillors could not have elected a Councillor to preside over the meeting and that minutes of meeting had not been recorded as required under Section 62 of the M. P. Municipalities Act 1961 (for short the Act. ). ( 2 ) THE learned single Judge held that the provisions of Section 47 should be followed strictly, that as per Section 47 (2) (iii) when motion of no confidence is moved against the President, he could not preside but the Vice President should have presided, that the pendency of motion against the Vice President did not render his office vacant, that only after lawful motion is passed against him, his office shall fall vacant and, therefore, at the time of passing of the motion against the President, an elected Councillor could not have presided and the conduct of the meeting was illegal and' the motion has to be quashed. The learned Judge also held that the minutes were not recorded in accordance with Section 62 inasmuch names of the Councillors voting were not recorded and this also vitiated the proceedings. It appears that in view of the peculiar situation of resolutions having been presented against both the President and the Vice President, the learned Advocate General suggested that fresh meeting could be held under the Chairmanship of the Collector and this was agreed to by the learned single Judge who directed a meeting to be convened on 19-7-1995 under the Chairmanship of the Collector to consider the no confidence motions afresh. The State Government, the Chief Municipal Officer and the Councillor who presided over the meeting have filed the present appeal challenging the order of the learned single Judge.
( 3 ) IN view of the importance of the legal questions involved in this appeal, the Division Bench which admitted the appeal, referred the case to a Full Bench. We may incidentally mention that the respondents have filed an appeal challenging the specific directions issued by the learned single Judge in regard to the fresh meeting. That appeal is not before us.
( 4 ) THE first question which arises for consideration is whether the fact that the Vice President did not preside over the meeting when it considered the resolution against the President and the third appellant was elected to preside over the meeting vitiates the resolution passed against the President.
( 5 ) SECTION 51 of the Act which deals with the powers and duties of President, lays down that it shall be the duty of the President to preside over meetings unless prevented by reasonable cause from doing so. Section 52 deals with functions of the Vice President. In the absence of President, it shall be the duty of the Vice President to preside at the meeting unless prevented by reasonable cause from doing so. Section 55 deals with first meeting after general election for election of President and Vice President. The meeting shall be presided over by Collector in case of Municipalities and by Sub-Divisional Officer in case of Nagar Panchayats. Section 56
