DEVENDRA BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, the President of a Municipal Board, approached this Court on 19/04/1990, as a motion of no-confidence in him was to be considered in the meeting of the Board which was scheduled to be held on 21/04/1990. On 19/03/1990, a motion of no-confidence, which was signed by 10 members of the Board, along with the notice to move the same, was presented to the District Magistrate upon an application made by the said signatories, they have been impleaded as respondents to this petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed on their behalf. A rejoinder-affidavit too has been filed. Though the petition has not been admitted as yet, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we heard it with a view to dispose it of finally and we are proceeding to do so.

(2.) It is common case of the parties that some time before, when the notice together with the motion of no-confidence was presented to the District Magistrate the total membership of the Board was 20. The membership of the two nominated members had been done away with by the State Government. Therefore, two casual vacancies, it will be presumed, occurred upon the cessation of the membership of the two nominated members. This means that actually the total membership of the Board was reduced to 19. It is not in dispute that 10 members of the Board had signed the motion taking into account the fact that there were two casual vacancies and, therefore, the total membership continued to be 20, the motion as presented to the District Magistrate was in order as it was in accordance with the provisions of sub-s. (2) of S. 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which inter alia, required that the motion of no-confidence in the president should be signed by not less than one half of the total members of the Board.

(3.) The Governor of Uttar Pradesh promulgated the U.P. Ordinance No. 2 of 1990 and thereafter repromulgated the U.P. Ordinance No. 8 of 1990, which was replaced by the U.P. Act No. 19 of 1990. We are concerned with the amendment introduced into S. 9 of the Act by the U.P. Ordinance No. 2 of 1990 in so far as the substitution of the first proviso to S. 9 is concerned. On the basis of the contents of the substituted first proviso it is contended that the constitution of the Board either came to an automatic end or its membership automatically stood raised from 20 to 21 and, therefore, the motion having been presented by less than half of the members of the total membership of 21 the same was invalid and inoperative. We shall examine the contents of the substituted proviso a little later. For understanding its intent and purpose it is necessary to go a little backwards. Section 9 of the Act, as material to the present controversy and as stood in 1955, inter alia, provided that a board shall consist of a President and the elected members who shall be not less than 15 and not more than 50 as the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify Section 9-A with which we are really not concerned, talked of reservations of certain seats for Scheduled Castes in each Board. By S. 20 of the U.P. Urban Local-self Government Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No. 41 of 1976) S. 9 was substituted. It was provided that a Board shall consist (a) the President, (b) the elected members, (c) the ex officio members and a proviso was inserted which may be extracted: