AJITSINH RAMUBHA JADEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is President of Jetpur Navagadh Municipality has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside the order/direction issued by the District Collector, Rajkot dated 6.4.2011 at Annexure A to the petition by which he has directed the Chief Officer of the Jetpur Navagadh Nagar Palika to call / convene the meeting to consider no confidence motion against the petitioner as per the notice moving no confidence motion against the petitioner dated 23.3.2011.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is councilor and President of Jetpur Navagadh Municipality. That the members of the municipality submitted motion for no confidence against the petitioner on three issues mentioned therein in their notice dated 24.1.2011. That apropos to the above notice meeting was called by the petitioner on 28.1.2011. However, in the said meeting, an application for adjournment of the meeting was submitted by 19 members of the municipality on the ground that 8 members of Municipality are disqualified for defection by the competent authority and as they have challenged the order of competent authority by filing a writ petition, which was kept for hearing and therefore, till the final disposal of the said petition, special general meeting called by the petitioner in respect of no confidence motion should be adjourned. IT is the case of the petitioner that therefore, the said Special General Meeting for no confidence motion was adjourned. IT is the case of the petitioner that however, the Vice President of the Municipality made a noting that in view of Section 51(11) of the Act, now meeting be called on 5.2.2011. IT is the case of the petitioner that on 5.2.2011, again 20 members of the municipality submitted an application with a request to call the meeting on 15.2.2011. IT is the case of the petitioner that on 15.02.2011 Chief Officer of the municipality informed the aforesaid 20 members as the special general meeting on 28.1.2011 was adjourned at their request till the final disposal of the writ petition filed by the 8 members of their party against their disqualification, now again the meeting cannot be called on 15.2.2011 as per their request. IT appears that Vice President and other members of the municipality moved a Special Civil Application No.3037 of 2011 before this Court making grievance against the petitioner for not calling special general meeting as per their request and the said petition came to be disposed of by this court vide order dated 10.3.2011 with a direction to the District Collector, Rajkot to call the special general meeting. IT is the case of the petitioner that thereafter as per the direction of this Court, the Deputy Collector, Gondal vide notice dated 14.3.2011 called special general meeting on 21.3.2011 and for want of majority support for passing the motion for no confidence, the motion for no confidence against the petitioner was rejected. IT appears that thereafter another motion for no confidence was moved against the petitioner by notice dated 23.3.2011 and neither the President nor the Vice President directed to convene the meeting to discuss the no confidence motion against petitioner pursuant to the notice of no confidence dated 23.3.2011, after obtaining necessary legal opinion, the Collector, Rajkot, by impugned communication dated 6.4.2011 has directed the Chief Officer to call the special general meeting to discuss the no confidence motion against the petitioner pursuant to the notice of no confidence dated 23.3.2011.

(3.) HEARD the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the only contention on behalf of the petitioner in the present Special Civil Application is that once the motion of no confidence was rejected in the meeting convened on 21.1.2011, within a period of three months thereafter there cannot be any fresh motion for no confidence within a period of three months. In support of the above contention and submission, the learned advocate for the petitioner has heavily relied upon Rule 24 of the Rules, which are framed under Section 271(a) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, which is referred to hereinabove. Therefore, the short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the aforesaid Rule 24 shall be applicable to the special general meeting and/ or motion for no confidence ? Now considering the aforesaid rules as a whole, it appears that whenever the word "motion" is used the same is referable to motion moved by a councilor to discuss the particular question in the meeting and it does not refer to the motion for no confidence for which special general meeting is required to be convened. For that purpose, Rule 5, 19, 20, 21, 22,23 and 28 are required to be read conjointly and as a whole. The word "motion" referred to in the aforesaid provision is with respect to a motion by the councilor and the rules provided for procedure of conducting the meeting of the general board which is as per Section 271(a) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. Therefore, the reliance placed upon Rule 24 of the Rules regarding meeting of the general board referred to hereinabove shall not be applicable to the motion for no confidence as sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner. It appears to the Court that Rule 24 shall be applicable with respect to any motion moved by councilor with respect to general meeting and general motion and the question to be incorporated in the agenda. It is to be noted that motion for no confidence is altogether different than that of motion moved by a councilor to be discussed in the general meeting or meeting of the general Board. Rule 19 provides about the motion and it provides for how to move the motion and it provides no motion shall be admissible, which is clearly and precisely not expressed; which shall contain arguments, inference, ironical expression or defamatory statement; or which does not raise or show one definite issue. Rule 20 provide how to move the motion. Rule 21 provides for moving of motion and Rule 22 provides for limitation as to discussion and Rule 23 for seconding the motion. Considering the aforesaid as such it does not refer to motion for no confidence. In the motion for no confidence as such there is no question of mentioning anything in the motion as provided in Rule 19 or Rule 20 or Rule 21. The motion for no confidence is governed by Section 51(11) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act and as such it does not provide that there cannot be any second and/or fresh no confidence motion within a period of three months from the rejection of the earlier motion. At this stage, it is to be noted that Section 271(a) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act permits the municipalities to have prescribed their own rule in consistent with the Act and may frame the rules which shall be consistent with the Act and for the subject provided in Section 271. That provision for motion for no confidence is provided under sub rule 51(2) only, which reads as under: "The president may, whenever he thinks fit and shall upon the written request of not less than one third of the councilors in the case of a motion of no confidence against the president or vice president and one forth of the councilors in any other case and on a day not later than 15 days after the presentation of such request, call a special general meeting. If the president fails to call a special general meeting as provided in this clause the vice president shall call such meeting on a day not later than thirty days after the presentation of such request".