Back
2004(1) JLJ 303
S.S. Jha and Subhash Samvatsar, JJ.
Narayan Nagina v. State of M.P. and others
L.P.A. No. 103 of 2003; against the order passed by Hon ‘ble Justice
Shri Rajendra Menon in W.P. No. 1310 of 2003;
Decided on 19.12.2003.
Appellant was elected as President of the Municipal Council, Sironj, District Vidisha in December, 1999. He was aggrieved by the resolution dated 17.2.2003, Annexure P-4 with the writ petition, whereby 3/4th of the Councillors of the Municipal Council had moved a proposal for recalling the appellant under section 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Act"). Petition filed by the appellant before the writ Court has been dismissed. Against this dismissal, this appeal is filed. [Para 1
Held: The language is clear and specific. Proceedings will be initiated only after three-fourth of the Councillors have signed the proposal and verified by the Collector to his satisfaction. Until and unless the Collector has satisfied himself and verified that three-fourth of the elected Councillors have signed the proposal, proceedings for recall cannot be said to be initiated. Mere submission of proposal is not sufficient unless the Collector has satisfied and verified that three-fourth of the elected Councillors have signed the proposal for recall voluntarily and once the Collector is satisfied and has forwarded the proposal to the State Government, then it will amount to initiation of process of recall. [Para 9
Sub-section (1) of section 47 is to be read with sub-section (2) and on reading of both the sub-sections, it is apparent that the proceeding for recall shall be deemed to be initiated when the Collector has satisfied himself after verification that three-fourth of the Councillors mentioned in sub-section (1) have submitted a proposal of recall. Satisfaction and verification by the Collector is mandatory under sub-section (2). Unless the Collector is satisfied after verification that three-fourth of the elected Councillors have signed the proposal, it cannot be said that the proceeding for recall has been initiated. 1999(2) MPLJ 608, 2003(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 119, 2003(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 219 and 1998(2) JLJ 267 relied on. (1998) 9 SCC 1131 followed. Order of Single Bench affirmed. [Paras 10 to 17
(2) Words and Phrases -- words "to initiate" -- mean "to originate" or "to take the first step". (1958) 3 ITR 670 relied on.
¼1½ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 47¼1½ rFkk 47¼2½ && v/;{k dks okil cqykus ds fy, dk;Zokgh dk vkjaHk gksuk && vkjaHk dc laiw.kZ gksrk gS && tc rd dyDVj us Lo;a dks lek/kku ugh dj fy;k gks rFkk lR;kfir ugha dj fn;k gks fd fuokZfpr ik‘kZnksa es ls rhu&pkSFkkbZ us izLrko ij gLrk{kj fd, gSa] rc rd ugha dgk tk ldrk fd dk;Zokgh vkjaHk gks xbZZA
vihykFkhZ fnlacj 1999 esa uxjikfydk ifj"kn~ fljksat] ftyk fofn‘kk dk v/;{k fuokZfpr gqvk FkkA og fjV ;kfpdk ds mica/k ih&4] ladYi fnukad 17-2-2003 ls O;fFkr gqvk ftlds }kjk uxjikfydk ifj"kn~ ds ik‘kZnksa esa ls 3@4 us e/; izns‘k uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼,rfLeu~i‘pkr~ *vf/kfu;e* dh Hkk¡fr fufnZ"V½ dh /kkjk 47 ds v/khu vihykFkhZ] dks okil cqykus ds fy, izLrko j[kk FkkA fjV U;k;ky; ds le{k vihykFkhZ }kjk Qkby dh xbZ ;kfpdk [kkfjt dj nh xbZ gSA bl [kkfjth ds fo#) ;g vihy Qkby dh xbZ gSA ¿ iSjk 1À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % Hkk"kk Li"V vkSj fofufnZ"V gSA dk;Zokgh rc gh izkjaHk gksxh tc izLrko ij rhu&pkSFkkbZ ik‘kZnksa }kjk lR;kiu dj fn;k x;k gksA rc rd dyDVj us Lo;a dk lek/kku ugha dj fy;k gks vkSj lR;kfir ugha dj fy;k gks fd fuokZfpr ik‘kZnks ds rhu&pkSFkkbZ us izLrko ij gLrk{kj fd, gS] rc rd okil cqykus dh dk;Zokgh izkjaHk gqbZ ugha dgh tk ldrhA izLrko izLrqr djuk ek= i;kZIr ugha gS tc rd fd dyDVj us ;g lek/kku vkSj lR;kfir ugha dj fy;k gks fd fuokZfpr ik‘kZnksa esa ls rhu&pkSFkkbZ us okil cqykus ds izLrko ij LosPNk ls gLrk{kj fd, gS vkSj tc ,d ckj dyDVj dk lek/kku gks tk, vkSj og izLrko jkT; ljdkj dks vxzsf‘kr dj ns rks og okil cqykus dh izfØ;k dk vkjaHk gksxkA ¿ iSjk 9À
/kkjk 47 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds lkFk i<+h tkuk gksaxh vkSj nksuksa mi/kkjk,¡ i<+us ij izdV gS fd okil cqykus dh dk;Zokgh rc izkjaHk gqbZ le>h tk,xh tc dyDVj dk lR;kiu ds ckn lek/kku gks tk, fd mi/kkjk ¼1½ esa mfYyf[kr ik‘kZnksa esa ls rhu&pkSFkkbZ us okil cqykus dk izLrko izLrqr fd;k gSA dyDVj }kjk lek/kku vkSj lR;kiu mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds v/khu vkKkid gSA tc rd dyDVj dk lR;kiu ds ckn lek/kku ugha gks tk, fd fuokZfpr ik‘kZnksa esa ls rhu&pkSFkkbZ us izLrko ij gLrk{kj fd, gSa] rc rd ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd okil cqykus dh dk;Zokgh izkjaHk gks xbZ gSA 1999¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 608] 2003¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 119] 2003¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 219] vkSj 1998 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 267 voyafcrA ¼1998½ 9 ,l lh lh 1131 vuqlfjrA ,dy U;k;ihB dk vkns‘k vfHkiq"VA ¿ iSjk 10 ls 17À
¼2½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; && ‘‘kCn *vkjaHk djuk* vFkZ gS] *mRié gksuk* vFkok *izFke dne mBkuk*A ¼1958½ 3 vkb Vh vkj 670 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 12À
Jha, J. -- 1. Appellant was elected as President of the Municipal Council, Sironj, District Vidisha in December, 1999. He was aggrieved by the resolution dated 17.2.2003, Annexure P-4 with the writ petition, whereby 3/4th of the Councillors of the Municipal Council had moved a proposal for reca1ling the appel1ant under section 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Act'). Petition filed by the appellant before the writ Court has been dismissed. Against this dismissal, this appeal is filed.
2. Counsel for the appel1ant contended that on 24.1.2002 proposal to recall the appellant from the post of President was submitted by the elected Councillors to the Collector under section 47 of the Act. Proposal was signed by 17 Council1ors. On 1.2.2002 out of 17 Councillors, nine Councillors have informed the Collector that the proposal Annexure P-2 with the writ petition was not signed by them voluntarily and they have singed the proposal for recalling the President should not be proceeded further. In view of the withdrawal of notice to recall by nine Councillors, proceedings were dropped as the Collector was not satisfied that the proposal to recall the President has been singed by 3/4th elected Councillors. Appellant contended that since the proposal to recall the President had failed, the subsequent proposal or action for recalling the President is not maintainable under the second proviso to section 47 of the Act. Therefore, the said proposal is without jurisdiction and the Collector of the District has no jurisdiction to forward the proposal to the State Government and the State Government has no power to make a reference to the State Election Commission.
3. Learned single Judge held that the earlier resolution was only a proposal and it was not a case of initiating proceedings. Learned single Judge further held that present proposal which is signed by 17 Councillors on 17.2.2003 and has been forwarded to the State Government after due verification and satisfaction by the Collector is initiation of the proceedings to recall for the first time.
4. Counsel for the appellant contended that once the proposal is submitted to the Collector, it is the end of the matter and submission of proposal for recalling the president amounts to initiating the proceedings for recall of the President. Once this power has been exercised by 3/4th of the Councillors of the Municipal Council, then subsequent proposal for recall is not maintainable.
5. Council for the respondents submitted that initiation of the proceedings would mean forwarding the proposal to the State Government by the Collector after due satisfaction. Until and unless proposal is forwarded by the Collector after due verification, proposal to recall is a proposal and the proceedings are initiated after the requirement of sub-section (2) of section 47 of the Act is fulfilled. He submitted that this resolution is maintainable.
6. Section 47 of the Act is reproduced below:
"Recalling of President -- (1) Every President of a Council shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if he is recalled through a secret ballot by a majority of more than half of the total number of voters of the municipal area casting the vote in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed:
Provided that no such process of recall shall be initiated unless a proposal is signed by not less than three fourth of the total number of the elected Councillors and presented to the Collector:
Provided further that no such process shall be initiated:
(i) within a period of two years from the date on which such President is elected and enters his office:
(ii) if half of the period of tenure of the President elected in a by-election has not expired:
Provided also that process for recall of the President shall be initiated once in his whole term.
(2) The Collector, after satisfying himself and verifying that the three fourth of the Councillors specified in sub-section (1) have
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
