S ETHIRAJA MUDALIAR Vs. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Municipal Chairman of the Chingleput Municipal Council. He seeks for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ to restrain the Revenue Divisional Officer from placing before the Council a notice of motion of no confidence duly presented to him by certain members of the Municipal Council.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he received a notice from the Revenue Divisional Officer informing him that a written notice of intention to make a motion of no confidence against the petitioner had been presented to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 17th August, 1961, under Section 40-A(2) of the District Municipalities. Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer gave notice to the petitioner that a meeting of the Municipal Council would be held in that connection at 3 P.M. on 12th September, 1961. A copy of the no confidence motion was also attached to this notice issued to the petitioner. It is to prevent the Revenue Divisional Officer from holding the meeting that the writ has been asked for.

(3.) The learned Counsel advanced two grounds. The first is that the written notice required by Section 40-A(2) was in fact presented to the Revenue Divisional Officer on the 10th August. The notice that was issued to this petitioner by the Revenue Divisional Officer himself stated definitely that this written notice of intention was presented to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 17th August, 1961. But the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a news item published in The Hindu of the 13th August, under date nth August, that fifteen members of the Chingleput Municipal Council had given notice of their intention to move a no confidence resolution against the sitting Chairman. From this the learned Counsel seeks to infer (apparently from similar news items in other newspapers also) that the written notice of the motion should have been presented to the Revenue Divisional Officer on the 10th August. If that is so, according to the learned Counsel, under Sub-section (3) of Section 40-A the Revenue Divisional Officer should have convened the meeting for the consideration of the motion at a time appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under Sub-section (2) was delivered to him. If the meeting is fixed to take place on the 12th of September, it is obviously beyond the period of thirty days and such a meeting would be in violation of the specific provision contained in the Act.