AJAI KRISHNA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above noted two writ petitions relate to the same subject matter. Hence having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties in both the writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) A motion of No Confidence appears to have been moved against Smt. Kusum Chauhan who was elected and was working as the Chairman of Nagarpalika Parishad, Balrampur. According to the report of the Presiding Officer, presiding over the meeting convened for considering the Motion of No Confidence it was carried out by a majority of two third as all the 17 members of the Parishad present had unanimously voted in favour of the Motion. The Adhyaksh Smt. Kusum Chauhan moved a representation to the State Government apart from other things, pointing out that the motion was not carried out by two third majority as provided under the provisions, namely, Sub-section (12) of Section 87-A of the Municipalities Act which provides :

(3.) According to para 9 of the representation preferred by the Adhyaksh in all there are 27 members of the Board, 25 elected members and 2 ex-officio members including the Member of Legislative Assembly. Therefore, 18 members would constitute the two third majority of the Body having 27 members. Therefore, 17 members would not constitute the majority of two third. Hence, the Motion was not carried out. The State Government on the representation in exercise of its powers under Section 34 (1) of the Municipalities Act, stayed the implementation of the resolution. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the exercise of power by the State Government is malafide and only with a view to help out the Adhyaksh who belongs to a particular political parity. It is further submitted that once the Motion is carried out, there is no occasion to prohibit execution of the resolution. On behalf of the opposite parties, it has been submitted that there has not been any malafide exercise of power but since it was found that the Motion was not carried out by two third Majority hence, the State Government exercised its power under Section 34 (1) of the Act. We feel that all that we need to examine is as to whether the exercise of power is malafide or not.