LAWS(ALL)-1976-12-19

HARI LAL ARYA Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On December 15, 1976
HARI LAL ARYA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Pipraich, District Gorakhpur. In pursu ance of a notice of intention to make a motion of no confidence given by certain Members of the Town Area Committee the District Magis trate issued a notice dated Oct. 28, 1975 convening a meeting of the Town Area Committee for consideration of the motion of no-confi dence against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the afore said notice by instituting Writ Petition No. 11599 of 1975 in this court. The Writ Petition was allowed on July 8, 1976 on the ground that the requirements of Section 87- A of the U.P. Municipalities Act which had been extended to the Town Area Committee had not been com plied with.

(2.) THE learned Judges also made an observation in their Judgment dated July 8, 1976 that in the event of a proper notice of a motion of no confidence being delivered to him, if the District Ma gistrate convenes a meeting for consideration of such motion he will convene the meeting at a fixed place so that there may be no occasion for further litigation. Thereafter, another notice was given by eight members of the Town Area Committee of a motion of no confidence intended to be passed against the petitioner. The said notice having been found to be in compliance with Section 87-A of the U.P. Muni cipalities Act, the District Magistrate convened a meeting of the Town Area Committee for consideration of the motion of no-confi dence on September 14, 1976. It appears that some objection was taken by the petitioner in regard to the place of holding of the meeting. The meeting appears to have been convened to take place in the office of the Town Area Committee. The petitioner seems to have brought to the notice of the authorities concerned that the Town Area Committee did not have any fixed office. The meeting was accordingly adjourned on September 14, 1976 and the next date fixed for the meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence was September 20, 1976. At this stage it may be pointed out that the petitioner ins tituted the present Writ Petition on September 13, 1976 with the prayer that the Notice dated September 1, 1976 convening the meet ing for September 14, 1976 may be quashed. The Writ Petition was admitted on that date and on the application for stay an order was passed to the effect that the meeting may take place but the First Additional Munsif, Gorakhpur who had been deputed to preside over the meeting would not announce the result of the voting nor would be communicated the result of the voting to the petitioner until fur ther orders of this court. We are informed that the meeting did take place on September 20, 1976 in pursuance of the interim order of this Court but the result of the voting had not been announced nor has it been communicated to the petitioner.

(3.) HAVING heard counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that there is no substance in any of the aforesaid submissions. In regard to the first submission it would be seen that the provisions of Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act were extended to the Town Areas in the State of Uttar Pradesh by a notification dated May 2, 1956 a copy of that notification has been attached as annexure I to the Writ Pe tition. The said notification indeed copies out verbatim the provi sions of Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act. The said Noti fication leaves no manner of doubt that it is Section 87-A as it stood on May 2, 1956 which was extended to the Town Areas. The amend ment of Section 87-A which has been made by U.P. Ordinance No. 27 of 1976 aforesaid has not been shown to have been extended to the Town Areas any subsequent notification. The question is as to whether the amendment in Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act by the aforesaid Ordinance would automatically apply to the Town Areas also. In our opinion it would not so apply. In taking this view we find support from a decision of a Full Bench of this court in Mani Ram v. State A.I.R. 1952 All. 40 that case related to a notified Area