BHARATBHAI GANESHBHAI PATEL Vs. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, who is Vice-President of Chanasma Municipality, has challenged the order (Annexure-G) dated 22.9.1999 passed by the Collector, Patan, instructing the Chief Officer to convene the meeting of the Councillors of Chanasma for considering the No Confidence Motion moved against the President and Vice-President of the Municipality under Section 51 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) On 26.7.1999 14 out of the 21 Councillors of the Municipality moved a motion of No Confidence requesting the President to convene the meeting for considering the motion of No Confidence. Since the President did not convene the meeting within 15 days i.e. by 8.8.1999 and since Vice-President did not convene the meeting within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application requesting for convening the meeting for No Confidence Motion, the Chief Officer of the Municipality submitted a report to the Collector under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act. The Collector, however, sent the papers back to the Chief Officer on 2.9.1999 stating that the report was premature as before the Chief Officer could submit the report 30 days time was required to be over from the date the Vice President received the application. Thereafter on 10.9.1999 the Chief Officer submitted a report to the Collector stating that when the Motion of No Confidence with a request to convene the meeting was received, on 26.7.1999 itself the Chief Officer has informed Vice-President to convene the meeting within 30 days but the Vice-President had declined to put his signature on the agenda notice. As against that the petitioner-Vice-President sent a letter dated 10.9.1999 informing the Collector that 30 days' time limit would expire on 8.10.1999 and that, therefore, it was for the petitioner - Vice-President to decide as to when the meeting should be convened. The Collector, however, passed the impugned order convening the meeting of the Municipality on 29.9.1999 to consider the No Confidence Motion against the President and Vice President. It is the aforesaid decision which is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 51 the Vice President is entitled to get 30 days time after the President declines to convene a special general meeting for considering a No Confidence Motion. Since the No Confidence Motion was moved on 26.7.1999, the 15 days' time limit would expire on 8.8.1999 and therefore the Vice President had absolute right to decide to convene the meeting within 30 days thereafter and such right could not be taken away till 8.10.1999. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act.