C N PANCHOLI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Can the President of a municipality invested with powers to call a special general meeting on requisition for consideration of a no-confidence motion against him call a meeting after a considerable lapse of time ? Can be term "to call" a meeting be equated with the term "to hold" a meeting for the purpose of consideration of the no- confidence motion more particularly against the President of a municipality ? These are the basic questions arising in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) . The factual backdrop giving rise to this petition may be examined. The Municipality involved in this case is the one at Gandhidham. The petitioner was elected as its President with effect from 13/01/1995. Our country has adopted the democratic set-up even for governance of local affairs. The affairs of a Municipality constituted under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 ("the Municipalities Act" for brief) are also managed by an elected body. The President and the Vice-President thereof are elected at the first meeting to be held after elections of municipal councillors as provided in Sec. 32 thereof. The term of office of such elected President is for a period of one year. Such elected person as the President of the concerned Municipality will be the leader of the majority party or most elected councillors. He has, therefore, to enjoy the confidence of the Municipal councillors or a majority of them not only at the time of his election but has to continue to enjoy such confidence during his term as the President thereof. If at any point of time he loses confidence of the requisite majority of Municipal councillors, he has to vacate his office as its President. In that regard provisions are made for bringing no-confidence motion. In order to see that anybody or everybody may not bring a motion of no-confidence for its own sake, some stringent provisions have been laid down. As provided in Sec. 51(2) of the Municipalities Act, such motion of no-confidence has to be by means of a written request of not less than the one-third of the councillors of the concerned Municipality. This statutory provision refers to the no-confidence motion against the President as well as the Vice-President. Since the no-confidence motion in this case is against the petitioner as the President of the Municipality at Gandhidham, the statutory provision pertaining to that office only will be considered. On receipt of a written request in that regard, the President of the municipality is required to call a special general meeting on a day not later than 15 days after the presentation of such request. It has further been provided that, in case the President fails to do so, the Vice-President shall call such meeting on a day not later than 30 days after the presentation of such request. The municipality at Gandhidham consists of total 42 councillors. Twentythree councillors thereof made a written request on 22/03/1995 for calling a special general meeting for considering a motion of no-confidence against the President. Further, requisition from 7 more councillors in that regard was received on 31/03/1995. On that very day the petitioner issued a notice for calling a meeting for the said purpose to be held on 28/07/1995. A copy of the circular in that regard is at Annexure A to this petition. It appears that the Vice-President of the Gandhidham Nagarpalika took the view that the petitioner had to hold the meeting within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the written request from the councillors and, since it was not held within 15 days from the date of such written request, he issued a notice on 7/04/1995 for holding a special general meeting on 15/04/1995 for consideration of the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. A copy of the notice together with the agenda is at Annexure B to this petition. The special general meeting as called by the Vice President thereof was held on 15/04/1995. In that meeting resolution No. 30 was passed expressing no-confidence against the petitioner. A copy of the minutes of the said meeting with respect to the said resolution is at Annexure C to this petition. The requisite majority for the purpose is the two-thirds of the total number of the then councillors of the municipality as provided in Sec. 36 of the Municipalities Act. But according to the petitioner, the motion was carried by only 26 members and the requisite majority for the purpose would be 28 members. It appears that the petitioner thereupon approached the District Collector (Respondent No. 3 herein) against the aforesaid resolution bearing No. 30 passed on 15/04/1995 expressing no-confidence against him. That attempt of the petitioner proved to be an exercise in futulity. According to respondent No. 3 the motion was passed with the requisite majority, and as such he thought it fit not to interfere with the resolution in question. He conveyed his decision in that regard on 7/04/1995 to the petitioner. Its copy is at Annexure D to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the validity of the resolution bearing No. 30 passed on 15/04/1995 at Annexure C to this petition and the order of respondent No. 3 at Annexure D to this petition.

(3.) . According to Shri Vakharia for the petitioner, what Sec. 51(2) requires the President to do is to call a special general meeting for consideration of the noconfidence motion within 15 days from the receipt of a written request from the specified number of councillors or more in that regard and not to hold the meeting within the specified time-limit. It has been urged that the requisition was received on 22/03/1995 and the notice of the meeting was issued on 31/03/1995, that is, very much within the specified period of 15 days. In that view of the matter, runs the submission of Shri Vakharia for the petitioner, the meeting called by the Vice-President by his notice at Annexure B to this petition and held on 15/04/1995 was without any authority of law; and the resolution passed thereat in terms of the minutes at Annexure C to this petition has to be ignored as of no consequence. As against this, both Kum. Shah and Shri Shah for the respondents have submitted that the law is very clear in that regard and the meeting for consideration of the no-confidence motion has to be held within the specified time-limit of 15 days from the date of receipt of a requisition in that regard and, if such meeting is not held within the specified time-limit, the Vice-President of the municipality was justified in issuing a notice on 7/04/1995 for holding a special general meeting for the purpose on 15/04/1995. It has been urged by both Kum. Shah and Shri Shah for the respondents that the meeting held on 15/04/1995 was validly held and the resolution bearing No. 30 passed thereat was quite legal and valid.