Back
T.S. Doabia
Ajit Singh
vs
Nagar Panchayat And Ors.
Decided on : 3 July, 1995
MUNICIPAL LAW - NO CONFIDENCE MOTION - NOTICE - SERVICE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - EFFECT OF PARTICIPATION IN MEETING - VALIDITY OF MEETING - PRESIDING OFFICER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a President of a Nagar Panchayat, challenged a resolution passed against him in a no-confidence motion, alleging that he was not served with a proper notice in accordance with Section 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, and that the meeting was not held in accordance with the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's participation in the meeting without raising any objection to the short notice or any other matter barred him from raising the objection in the present petition. The court also held that the notice sent by circulation was valid and covered by the term 'despatch' as used in Section 47 of the Act. Furthermore, the court held that the requirement of law is that the notice should be despatched, not served, ten days before the meeting, and that the members can elect one of them to preside over the meeting where a no-confidence motion is to be considered against the President.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's participation in the meeting barred him from raising the objection of short notice in the petition? 2. Whether the notice sent by circulation was valid and covered by the term 'despatch' as used in Section 47 of the Act? 3. Whether the requirement of law is that the notice should be despatched, not served, ten days before the meeting? 4. Whether the members can elect one of them to preside over the meeting where a no-confidence motion is to be considered against the President?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in K. Narasimhiah v. H. C. Singri Gowda and others, AIR 1966 SC 330, which held that the presence of the person against whom a no-confidence motion was moved in the meeting and his failure to raise any objection to the short notice was enough to non-suit him. 2. The court interpreted the term 'despatch' in Section 47 of the Act to include sending a message through a special messenger or by circulation, and held that the notice sent by circulation was valid. 3. The court interpreted the requirement of law to be that the notice should be despatched, not served, ten days before the meeting, and not that ten days should intervene between the service of the notice and the holding of the meeting. 4. The court held that the Vice-President is to preside when the President is absent, but when the President is present, the members can elect one of them to preside over the meeting.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
T.S. Doabia, J.
1. Having lost the battle of ballot, the petitioner shifted the arena of the dispute. He has preferred a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He challenges a resolution by which a vote of no confidence was passed against him. This is annexure P/1. This was passed on 18th of May, 1995. The challenge is made on the ground that the petitioner was not served with a notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is further argued that meeting was not held in accordance with provision of the Act. It is worthwhile to notice that there are 15 members of the Nagar Panchayat, Bhitarwar. A motion with a view to oust an office holder i.e. President or vice-president has to be carried out by 2/3rd majority. In this case, ten members voted in favour of the motion and as noticed above the resolution was duly carried out. The copy of this resolution as noticed above is annexure P/1.
2. Before noticing various contentions, it would be apt to notice the provision of Section 47 of the Act. This provision reads as under :
"47. No confidence motion against president or vice- president. - (1) A motion of no confidence may be moved against the President or the Vice-president by any elected Councillor at a meeting specially convened for the purpose under sub-section (2) and if the motion is carried by a majority of two-third's of the elected Councillor present and voting and if such majority is more than half of the total number of the elected Councillors constituting the Council for the time being the office of President of the Vice President, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have become vacant forthwith.
(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1) a meeting of the Council shall be held in the following manner, namely :-
(i) the meeting shall be convened by the Chief Municipal Officer on a requisition signed by not less than one-sixth of the total number of elected Councillors constituting the Council for the time being;
(ii) the notice of such a meeting specifying the time and place thereof
(3) If the office of the President becomes vacant under this section, all powers and duties of the President may, until the election or appointment of his successor, be exercised and performed by the Vice President and if there be no Vice President by such Councillor as the State Government may, appoint in this behalf.
(4) The fact of removal of President or the Vice-President under sub-section (1) and the appointment of his successor shall be notified in the Gazette by the State Government."
Reliance is also placed on Section 59 of the Act. This provision be also noticed :
"Chairman of meeting - At every meeting of a Council, the President, if present, or in his absence or during the vacancy of his office, a Vice President and if there be no President or Vice President present then such one of their members as the Councillors present may elect, shall preside as Chairman."
It is on the basis of the above statutory provisions following arguments have been raised :
(i) that, it was incumbent upon the Chief Municipal Officer to give ten clear days notice before holding the meeting where motion of no confidence was to be passed.
(ii) that, the meeting should have been presided over by the Vice-President and the fact that it was presided by one Sarnam Singh, who was elected as Chairman of the meeting the motion passed cannot be said to be passed in a meeting which was properly conducted.
(iii) that, notice under Section 47(2)(ii) of the Act was required to be dispatched. According to the petitioner, the service of notice by circulation is not sufficient compliance of law.
3. The counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that the only requirement of law is to despatch the notice ten clear days before holding of the meeting. According to them it is not the requirement of law that between the service of the notice and the holding of the
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
