Back
S.P. Srivastava, J.
Prabhakar Narayan Kelkar And Ors.
vs
State Of M.P. And Ors.
Decided on : 18 September, 1998
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - MOTION OF NO-CONFIDENCE - DEPUTY MAYOR - WITHDRAWAL OF REQUISITION - JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER - AMENDMENT OF ACT - TRANSITORY PROVISIONS - SPEAKER - TENURE OF OFFICE - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
A requisition for holding a meeting for considering the no-confidence motion against the Deputy Mayor was presented. The Commissioner, acting upon the requisition, summoned a meeting. However, before the date scheduled for the meeting, the proposer and seconder of the requisition withdrew it. The Commissioner passed an order cancelling the meeting. The petitioners, who were councillors, challenged the order of the Commissioner.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Commissioner had jurisdiction to cancel the meeting for considering the motion of no-confidence since the requisition had been withdrawn before the meeting could take place. 2. The amendment to the Act, which brought into effect the provisions contained in Section 23-A, did not apply to the Deputy Mayor, who had been elected under the unamended Act and was continuing in office under the transitory provisions. 3. The Deputy Mayor could be removed from office only in accordance with the provisions of the unamended Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to cancel the meeting for considering the motion of no-confidence after the requisition had been withdrawn? 2. Whether the amendment to the Act, which brought into effect the provisions contained in Section 23-A, applied to the Deputy Mayor, who had been elected under the unamended Act and was continuing in office under the transitory provisions?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The existence of a valid requisition is a condition precedent for holding the meeting for the consideration of no-confidence motion and the legislative intent is that the requisition must be of that number of the councillors which constitutes atleast l/6th of the total number of the councillors constituting the Corporation. 2. The decision in regard to the motion of no-confidence has to be taken in the manner prescribed under the Act under Section 24(1) thereof. 3. The transitory provisions permitted the existing Deputy Mayor to continue to function till the expiration of the duration of the existing corporation. This in unmistaken term indicated that a Deputy Mayor who had already entered upon his office by virtue of his election as contemplated under the provisions of the unamended Act was to continue to hold his office till the expiration of the duration of the existing corporation. 4. The change of designation did not and could not result in altering the security of tenure to which a Deputy Mayor was entitled by virtue of his having been elected as a Deputy Mayor and he could be dislodged from his office on which he had entered upon under the provisions of the unamended Act only strictly adhering to the provisions contained under the unamended Act without being affected by the changes brought into effect in the matter relating to the removal of a Speaker with the enforcement of the M. P. Act No. 18 of 1997 which could be attracted only in case of a Speaker elected in accordance with Section 18 of the Act as amended and who had entered upon the said office after having been elected as contemplated under the aforesaid provision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed in part. The orders of the Commissioner and the Collector quashing the requisition for holding a meeting for consideration of the motion of no-confidence against the Deputy Mayor were quashed. The Commissioner was directed to proceed further treating the requisition dated 4-8-1997 to be entertainable and hold the meeting for considering the motion of no-confidence against the Deputy Mayor in accordance with law.
S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 7th October, 1996 passed by the Commissioner and the order dated 23-8-1997 passed by Sanyukta Sanchalak, Sanchanalaya, Nagar Prashashan, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, as well as the consequential order passed by the Collector dated 30-8-1997, the petitioners have now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the aforesaid orders and issuance of a direction for holding the meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence brought against Shri Ramniwas Singh Gurjar, Deputy Mayor/Speaker of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior.
2. It may be noticed that under the order dated 7-10-1996 the Mayor had cancelled the proposed meeting scheduled to be held on 8-10-1996 for considering the motion of no-confidence against the aforesaid Shri Ramniwas Singh Gurjar, the Deputy Mayor, the requisition for which had been received on 6-9-1996. Vide the order dated 23-8-1997 the Sanyukta Sanchalak had informed the Collector Gwalior that the requisition dated 4-8-1997 for holding a meeting for consideration of motion of no-confidence against the Speaker was not entertainable. Vide the order dated 30-8-1997 the Collector, district Gwalior, acting on the aforesaid order of the Sanyukta Sanchalak had declined to entertain the motion of no-confidence.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel representing the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel representing the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and have also carefully perused the record.
4. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. Shri Ramniwas Singh Gurjar, a Parshad (Councillor), in the Nagar Nigam, Gwalior, had been elected as Deputy Mayor of the Corporation on 4-1-1995. While he was holding the post of Deputy Mayor a requisition for holding a meeting for considering the no- confidence motion against him signed by 34 councillors was presented on 6- 7-1996. This requisition was proposed by Shri Shammi Sharma, a Parshad and was approved/seconded by Shri Pooransingh Palaiya. It was signed by several other Parshads. On the aforesaid requisition, finding that the number of councillors, who had signed on the requisition, was more than l/6th of the total number of councillors, the Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Gwalior, vide his order dated 25-9-1996 requisitioned a special meeting for the consideration of the motion of no-confidence which was to be held on 8th of October, 1996. However, before the date scheduled for holding the meeting, Shri Shammi Sharma, the "Prastavak" of the requisition and Shri Pooransingh Palaiya, the "Samarthak" of the requisition, moved an application on 5th of October 1996 informing the Commissioner that the aforesaid requisition was withdrawn. Receiving the intimation regarding withdrawal of the requisition the Commissioner passed an order dated 7th October, 1996 cancelling the meeting scheduled to be held on 8-10-1996 for consideration of the motion of no-confidence.
5. The provisions contained in Section 24 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, relating to a motion of no-confidence against a Deputy Mayor under the Act, as in force on the relevant dates, was to the following effect:-
"24. Removal of Mayor and the Deputy Mayor. - A motion of no- confidence may be moved against the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor 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-thirds of the (elected) councillors present and voting and if such majority is more than half of the total number of (elected) councillors constituting the Corporation for the time being, the office of the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have become vacant forthwith. Provided that no such motion shall He against the Mayor or Deputy Mayor within a period of-
(i) one year from the date on which the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, as
AI
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
