SHANTHAKUMAR Vs. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHICKMAGALUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner is the President and the second petitioner is the Vice-President of the respondent-City Municipal Council, chickmagalur (hereinafter referred to as "the Municipal Council" ).

(2.) IN these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the notice dated 15th of March 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A to these petitions, issued by the respondent for convening a special meeting on 24th of March 2000 of the members of the Municipal Council, to consider the motion of want of confidence moved against the petitioners. Since, during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the want of confidence motion moved against the petitioner is passed, the petitioners have also prayed for quashing the said Resolution dated 24th of March 2000 of the Municipal Council.

(3.) SRI Narayanaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of the prayer of the petitioners that the impugned resolution passed expressing want of confidence against the petitioners is liable to be quashed, made two submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the resolution has not been passed by two-thirds of the total number of members of the Council in terms of sub-Section (9) of Section 42 of the Act. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners continue to be the President and Vice President of the municipal Council. Elaborating this submission, he pointed out that two-thirds of the total number of Councillors referred to in sub-Section (9) of Section 42 of the Act, means all the members who constitute the Council in terms of Section 11 (1) (a) (c) and (d) of the Act, In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision of the supreme Court in the case of RAEES AHMAD vs STATE OF UTTAR pradesh and also that of this Court in the case of S. SHIVASHANKARAPPA vs DAVANAGERE MUNICIPALITY He also pointed out that two-third of the total number of members of the municipal Council should not be understood as two-third of the total number of members who are present at the meeting of the Council. Secondly, he submitted that five of the nominated members of the council were not served with the notice of the meeting; and, therefore, even if it is held that the said nominated members are not entitled to be considered for the purpose of counting two-thirds of the total number of members in terms of sub-section (9) of Section 42 of the Act and they are not entitled to vote while considering the motion of want of confidence moved against the petitioners, still they are entitled to be served with the notice of the meeting, so that they could express their views in the meeting; and since admittedly the same has not been done, the impugned resolution is vitiated.