Disqualification of Councillors requires formal decision by the Collector to invalidate their participation in a no-confidence meeting.

1. The petitioner is this petition is the President of the Council, Katol, and the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are the Municipal Councillors. Admittedly, on 5-9-1972 some Councillors gave a requisition to the Sub-Divisional Officer Katol who was performing the duties and exercising the powers of the Collector under S.55 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Ad, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for a meeting to be called in which a resolution of no - confidence in the petitioner was to be mowed. On 6-9-1972 the Sub-Divisional Officer issued the necessary notice convening the meeting for 13-9-1972. The petitioner then immediately filed this petition praying that the notice of the meeting issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer should be quashed because, according to him, the three respondents who were signatories to the requisition had incurred a disqualification and. therefore ceased to be Councillors. According to the petitioner, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were defaulters in the matter of payment of municipal taxes. It was alleged that the respondent No. 1 had not paid taxes for the year 1971-72 and 1972-73 in spite of service of demand bill No. 588 dated 19-5-1972 and a report about the non - payment of taxes by him was made to the Collector by the Chief Officer of she Municipal Council under S.45(1) of the Act. Further, according to him, the respondent No. 2 had also not paid taxes for the first quarter of the year 1972 amounting to Re. 447-50 P. and against him also a report had been made by the Chief Officer to the Collector. The petitioner alleged that the Collector, Nagpur, had issued show - cause notices to both these respondents why action should not be taken against them under S.45 of the Act. The petitioner's allegation against the respondent No. 3 was that he had been absent at the meetings of the Council as from 18-12-1971 continuously until the meeting of 7-8-1972 without obtaining the leave of absence and he had also, therefore, incurred a disqualification under S.44(1)(D) of the Act and had disabled himself from continuing as a Councilor. This matter was also pending before the Collector.

2. When this matter was heard on 12-9-1972, dm Court directed that the meeting scheduled to be held on 13-9-1972 should he held and the respondents No. 1 to 3 were permitted to participate in the said meeting. The Court had also directed that the votes be taken by ballot but the result of the ballot should not be declared, and the Presiding Officer of the meeting, namely, the Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to forward the proceedings and the ballot papers to this Court immediately after the meeting was held on 13-9-1972.

3. On 6-10-1972 an interim order was passed in this case after the sealed ballot box containing the ballot papers was opened, it was found that the ballot box contained 9 ballot papers in support of the resolution of no - confidence. This Court also observed that the case will have to be further heard in order to find out whether the three councillors who were alleged to be disqualified were entitled to cast vote in the said meeting.

4. The petitioner had, by an amendment of his petition, alleged that an intimation which was required to be given to him in his capacity as President under the proviso to Sub-Section (3) of S. 55 of the Act was not given. This was one of the grounds according to him, on which the meeting was vitiated. The respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have by their return denied that they were disqualified or that they were not entitled to vote. The Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector have also riled a return in which also a stand is taken that the meeting was properly convened and that the three respondents, were entitled to vote at the said meeting. It ma