PITAMBAR Vs. MUNSIF, HATHRAS, DISTRICT ALIGARH AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 28 -4 -1967, the Petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Hasaya, district Aligarh. On 8 -5 -1968, the Respondents 3 to 7 served a notice on the District Magistrate requesting him to hold a meeting of the Committee to consider a motion of no -confidence against the Chairman. The Munsif, Hathras district Aligarh was appointed to preside at the meeting. The meeting was held on 26 -8 -1968. The Petitioner, who was the Chairman, attended the meeting. Besides him, five other members also attended. The motion was put to vote. Five members voted in favour of the motion. The Petitioner's case is that the learned Munsif did not permit the Petitioner to vote though he wanted to vote against the motion. The Munsif in his report held that the Town Area Committee consisted of nine members. The Chairman was not an elected member. As such he has no right to vote. Five members voted for the motion. This was more than half of the total membership of the Town Area Committee. Consequently, he declared the motion to have been carried out. Aggrieved, the Chairman has come to this Court.

(2.) SECTION 5 of the Town Areas Act, 1914, says that the Committee shall be established for each Town Area. The Committee is to consist of:

(3.) THE learned Munsif has erroneously held that the Chairman is not an elected member and as such he has no right to vote. He misconceived the legal position. The Chairman was elected by the entire electorate, though he was elected as a Chairman and not as a member. The Munsif was in error in disallowing the Chairman from voting or in excluding him from the membership of the Committee.