GANGA PRASAD Vs. SRI ASADULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GANGA Prasad has come up in appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 15th November, 1973, dismissing his peti tion for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. In that petition, Ganga Prasad prayed for a writ of mandamus and claimed that the respondents, who were either members of the Municipal Board, Faridpur, or claimed to be such members, be directed not to take part in a meeting that had been convened for 16th Septem ber, 1973, for considering the motion ol no-confidence against the petitioner.

(2.) GENERAL election for electing members of the Municipal Board took place on 30th May, 1971. In that election 15 persons, including Sri Nathu Lal, were declared elected as members of the Board Subsequently, in the month of June, 1973, the petitioner (Ganga Prasad), who was an outsider was elected as the President of the Board. The total strength of the Board thus was 16 i.e. 15 members and a President. After election of members, election petitions were filed, challenging the election of Nathu Lal and Asadullah. However, in this case we are concerned only with the controversy arising as a re sult of Nathu Lai's election. Election of Nathu Lal was challenged on the ground that he was not eligible to seek election for a seat reserved for scheduled caste. Election petition, challenging the election of Nathu Lal, was allowed on 21st May, 1973 and after setting aside his election, the Tribunal declared a casual vacancy, Being aggrieved, Nathu Lal filed writ pe-tion No. 4089 of 1973 before this Court and obtained the following interim order on 16th July, 1973. "Issue notice. Stay operation of the impugned order dated 21-5-1973, mean while." In that petition Nathu Lal neither im-pleaded the President, nor the Municipal Board, nor the District Magistrate, Ba-reilly, as a party. It appears that in the meantime, some members of the Board contemplated initiation of proceedings for expressing no-confidence in the petitioner and for ousting him from office and the petitioner suspected that Nathu Lal was one of such persons. Accordingly, on 16th August, 1973, the petitioner, with a view to prevent Nathu Lal from participating in any move to oust him from office, filed .an application in writ petition No. 4089 of 1973, praying that he be impleaded as a party and that the interim order dated 16th July, 1973, be vacated. Learned counsel appearing for Nathu Lal took time for opposing the prayer made in the aforesaid application. In the meantime, on the same date, i.e. 16th August, 1973, 8 members of the Board delivered to the District Magistrate, a notice of their in tention to move a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. Consequently, a meeting for considering the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner was con vened for 16th September. 1973. Applica tion made by the petitioner on 16th August, 1973. for being impleaded as a party in writ petition No. 4089 of 1973 and for vacating the stay order dated 16th July, 1973, was, after being opposed by Nathu Lal, rejected on 3rd September, 1973, on the ground that he was not a necessary party to those proceedings. Thereafter, on 5-9-1973, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying that Nathu Lal be prevented from participating in the meeting which had been convened for considering the motion of no-confidence against the peti tioner, as his election had already been set aside and he was not competent to act as member of the Board. The peti tioner also made an application for inte rim relief. This court permitted Nathu Lal to participate in the meeting schedul ed for 16th September, 1973, but directed that until further orders, the presiding officer should not declare the result of that meeting. In due course, the meeting for considering the motion of no-confid ence against the petitioner was held on 16th September, 1973, but as directed by this Court, its result was not announced. When the writ petition came up for final hearing, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that its decision should be post poned till such time as writ petition No. 4089 of 1973, filed by Nathu Lal is not decided. According to him, if that peti tion was dismissed, it would conclusively establish that Nathu Lal was not compe tent to participate in the meeting held on 16th Sept., 1973 and the motion of no-confidence could not, in law, be carried against the petitioner because of his vote. The learned single Judge held that in view of the interim order dated 16th July, 1973, in writ petition No. 4089 of 1973 on 16th September, 1973, Nathu Lal was fully competent to participate in the meeting convened for considering the mo tion of no-confidence against the petition er and the fact that the petition filed by him is ultimately dismissed and it is found that his election had been rightly set aside will not in any way affect the vali dity of the proceedings in that meeting. Accordingly, the learned single Judge re fused to adjourn the hearing and dis missed the writ petition. Being aggriev ed, the petitioner filed the present special appeal and prayed that the judgment of the learned Single Judge be set aside and the petition filed by him be allowed.

(3.) IT may be mentioned at this stage that at the time of the hearing of this appeal, we were informed that writ petition No. 4089 of 1973, filed by Nathu Lal, in which the interim order dated 16th July, 1973, had been passed, has since been dismissed and this court has held that his election had been rightly set aside by the Election Tribunal as he w.as not entitled to contest on a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste. Learned counsel for Nathu Lal informed us that a special appeal against the judgment in writ peti tion No. 4089 of 1973 is also pending be fore this Court. It was suggested that this appeal may be heard along with the spe cial appeal, filed by Nathu Lal, but the learned counsel appearing for Nathu Lal objected to this suggestion and urged that this appeal should be heard and disposed of without waiting for a decision in Nathu Lai's case. For the purposes of this ap peal, therefore, we will proceed on the footing that subsequent to the decision of the writ petition giving rise to this ap peal, the writ petition No. 4089 of 1973, filed by Nathu Lal stands dismissed and that this court has affirmed the decision of the Election Tribunal, setting aside Nathu Lai's election.