Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 409
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.S. Jha, J.
Shekhar Choudhary v. Union of India through Directorate of General Defence Estates, Raksha Sambada Bhawan, Ulaanbaatar Marg, Delhi Cantonment
Writ Petition No.6783 of 2016 (Jabalpur); Decided on 20.6.2016.
K.C. Ghildiyal with Suyash Thakur for petitioner;
Smt. Indira Nair with Rajas Pohankar for respondents No.3 and 4;
Jafar Khan for respondent No.5;
Aseem Dixit and Ms. Shweta Yadav for respondents No.6 and 8;
Shivendra Pandey for respondent No.7.
Headnote:Cantonments Act, 2006 -- Ss.20(2)(3), 39 and 45 -- procedure for removing Vice-President of Cantonment Board -- once resignation withdrawn by petitioner -- same could not have been approved and accepted in special meeting -- decision taken by Board in its meeting is contrary to law and dismissed -- absence of any specific requisition for removal of same from office -- Board could not have taken resort provision under section 20(3) of Act of 2006 for conducting voting -- thereafter resolve that by majority of voting petitioner's resignation accepted -- impugned resolution and consequent letter quashed -- such act of respondent Board quashed -- petition allowed.
Held : I am of the considered opinion that once the resignation had been withdrawn by the petitioner the same could not have been approved and accepted in the special meeting held on 7.4.2016 and therefore, the decision taken by the Board in its meeting dated 7.4.2016 being contrary to law deserves to be and is hereby quashed.
[Paras 14 & 15
Nkouh vf/kfu;e] 2006 & /kkjk 20¼2½¼3½] 39 rFkk 45 & Nkouh cksMZ ds mik/;{k dks gVk, tkus ds izfdz;k & ,c ckj ;kph R;kx&i= izR;kg`r dj pqdk & mls fo'ks"k cSBd esa vuqeksfnr rFkk Lohdkj ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg, & cksMZ }kjk viuh cSBd esa fd;k x;k fofu'p; fof/k ds izfrdwy rFkk [kkfjt & dk;kZy; ls mls gVkus ds fy, fdlh fofufnZ"V v/;is{kk ds vHkko esa & cksMZ dks ernku lapkfyr djkus ds fy, vf/kfu;e 2006 dh /kkjk 20¼3½ ds mica/kksa ds v/khu rRi'pkr~ ;g ladYi djus ds fy, fd ernku ds cgqer ds }kjk ;kph dk R;kx&i= Lohdkj fd;k x;k] vkJ; ugha fy;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk & vk{ksfir ladYi rFkk ifj.kkfed i= vfHk[kafMr & izR;FkhZ cksMZ dk ,slk dk;Z vfHk[kafMr & ;kfpdk eatwjA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % esjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa fd ,d ckj ;kph }kjk R;kx&i= okil ys fy;k x;k] mls 7-4-2016 dks gqbZ fo'ks"k cSBd esa vuqeksnu rFkk Lohdkj ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk rFkk blfy, cksMZ }kjk viuh cSBd fnukafdr 7-4-2016 esa fd;k x;k fofu'p; fof/k ds izfrdwy gksus ls vfHk[kafMr gks us ;ksX; gS rFkk ,rn~}kjk vfHk[kafMr fd;k x;k gSA
1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 7.4.2016 (Annexure P-7), which is a resolution passed by the Special Board Meeting of Cantonment Board, Sagar, accepting his resignation as well as the letter dated 7.4.2016 (Anexure P-8) issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Sagar whereby, the the Chief Executive Officer has called for a special meeting of the Board on 18.4.2016 for the purposes of holding elections for the post of Vice-President of the Board under section 39 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2006”).
2. The admitted and undisputed facts leading to the filing of the petition are that the petitioner is the duly elected Vice-President of Cantonment Board, Sagar. It is also an undisputed fact that on 4.3.2016 the petitioner sent a letter to the authority tendering his resignation from the post of Vice-President, Cantonment Board, Sagar. It is also an admitted and undisputed fact that the matter of acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner came up for consideration in a special meeting of the Board held on 7.4.2016. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner submitted an application for withdrawal of his resignation on 6.4.2016 which was also considered and came up for decision before the special meeting of the Board on 7.4.2016. It is also an admitted and undisputed fact that the Members of the special committee of the Board accepted the petitioner’s resignation in the special meeting held on 7.4.2016 by a majority of 8:3 votes and the post ofVice-President was declared vacant by the Chief Executive Officer and fresh elections were directed to be held by the letter dated 7.4.2016 (Annexure P-8).
3. In the backdrop of the aforesaid admitted and undisputed facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner/Vice-President submits that the petitioner’s notice of resignation was withdrawn by him on 6.4.2016 prior to its acceptance in the special meeting of the Board on 7.4.2016 and in such circumstances, once the resignation has been withdrawn the question of its acceptance by the Board did not arise. It is submitted that before the special meeting that was held on 7.4.2016 the petitioner had submitted his letter of withdrawal of resignation on 6.4.2016 and the same was duly considered in the special meeting held on 7.4.2016 but the Members of the Board instead of applying their mind to the fact that the resignation had already been withdrawn, accepted it by a majority of 8 against 3 votes, which is contrary to law.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in his letter of withdrawal of resignation, he had stated that in case the Members of the Board wish to remove him then they should follow the prescribed procedure under the Act of 2006 by moving a motion of no confidence but the respondents/Board has adopted a novel method of circumventing the rigors of those provisions by accepting the resignation that had been withdrawn simply by resorting to voting which is in contravention of the provisions relating to no-confidence. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it is urged that the impugned decision of the Special Meeting dated 7.4.2016 (Annexure P-7) and the letter dated 7.4.2016 (Annexure P-8) issued by the Chief Executive Officer be quashed.
5. The learned senior advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4 submits that the petitioner submitted a letter of resignation from the post of Vice-President which was processed by the authority of the Board and was placed for consideration in the agenda for the meeting that was held on 7.4.2016. It is stated that while the said agenda regarding resignation of the petitioner was being considered, the petitioner submitted his letter of withdrawal across the Board in the meeting itself and it was in such circumstances that the Members of the Board decided to accept the resignation which cannot be found fault with. It is submitted that the procedure followed by the respon
