Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission.

1. The petitioner contested and succeeded in the election held in the year 2005 for the post of President Municipal Council Deori District Sagar. On 6.8.2007 out of total 15 Councillors 13 Councillors of the said Municipal Council submitted a proposal before the Collector, Sagar for recalling of the petitioner from his office as President of the Municipal Council. The Collector after satisfying himself and verifying that the three fourth of the Councillors of the Municipal Council have signed the proposal of recall of the petitioner sent the said proposal on 8/9.8.2007 to the State Government for further action.

2. Thereafter, before the third respondent State Election Commission could declare the electiol1; two Councillors out of the said 13 Councillors submitted another affidavits before the Collector on 30.8.2007 and 31.8.2007 respectively stating therein that the earlier affidavits seeking recall of the petitioner were submitted under political pressure and compulsion and as such the same be treated incorrect and be treated as cancelled. Thereafter, again on 1.9.2007 the said two Councillors submitted third affidavits contradicting the affidavits sworn by them on 30.8.2007 and 31.8.2007. In view of the submission of the three different affidavits taking different stand show-cause notices were issued to them by the Collector, and it is stated by the petitioner that the Collector has passed orders removing the said two Councillors from their post.

3. The case of the petitioner is that after submitting the proposal of recall out of 13 Councillors 2 Councillors having sworn affidavit stating therein that no action be taken on their earlier proposal and affidavit in regarding to recalling of the petitioner, the impugned proposal dated 8/ 9.8.2007 (Annexure P-l) sent by the Collector to the State Government became totally inconsequential and could not have been acted upon either by the Collector, or by the State Government for making reference to the State Election Commission to arrange for voting on the said proposal. The petitioner accordingly, prayed that the proposal Annexure P-l sent by the Collector, Sagar, to the State Government be quashed and the· election programme (Annexure P-ll) issued by the State Election Commission be also quashed.

4. Shri T.S. Ruprah, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2 argued that in view of section 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') the action of the Collector, State Government and the State Election Commission cannot be said to be illegal. He pointed out from the proposal (Annexure P-l) sent by the Collector that on 6.8.2007, 13 Councillors appeared before the Collector and they all presented the proposal of recalling of the petitioner. The Collector after satisfying himself and verifying that the three-fourth of the Councillors have submitted the proposal of recall referred the proposal to the State Government for further action. He also submitted that after sending of the said proposal by the Collector vide communication dated 8/9.8.2007 (Annexure P-1) to the State Government, filing of the affidavits by two Councillors to withdraw the earlier affidavits and proposal to recall the petitioner being inconsequential has rightly been ignored by the Collector, the State Government and also by the State Election Commission. According to him in view of section 47 of the Act after sending the proposal to the State Government the Collector became functus officio and under the scheme of section 47 neither the State Government nor the State Election Commission have powers to reconsider the matter on the basis of filing of affidavits by some Councillors seeking withdrawal of their proposal.

5. Having heard learned counsel and on a close scrutiny of section 47 of the Act, I find no merit in this writ petition.

6. On going through the proposal dated 8/9.8.2007 (Anne