SHIVDAS Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BHANDARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition ,the petitioner seeks a writ quashing an order dated 20th December, 1985 passed by Shri R.T. Kharche, Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhandara, holding invalid a resolution dated 20th December 1985 removing the President, Nagar Parishad, Bhandara, from the Presidentship of the Municipal Council.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that in the Municipal Council, Bhandara, there are 38 seats for Councillors, excluding the Councillors who are to be co-opted. That respondent No. 3 Nandurkar was elected President of the Council. On 13th December 1985, 25 Councillors submitted a requisition to the Collector for convening a Special Meeting to move a Motion of No-confidence against the President, i.e. respondent No. 3. The Collector issued a notice dated 15-12-1985 for holding a Special Meeting on 20th December 1985 at 1 p.m. At this meeting 36 councillors assembled, one of them being a co-opted councillor. Out of these 36 Councillors, 10 refused to mark their presence and left the meeting hall leaving behind 26 Councillors including a co-opted councillor. The motion was then put to vote. As the co-opted Councillor had no vote he refrained from voting. The other 25 Councillors voted against the President. The Presiding Officer, who was a Deputy Collector, then gave a finding that the requisite strength (i.e. two-thirds of the total number of councillors) was not reached and hence the motion of no-confidence stood rejected. Being aggrieved by this decision the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order of the Presiding Officer.

(3.) The petitioner has contended that the provisions of S.55 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 ('Municipalities Act' for short) required a resolution for a no-confidence to be passed by not less than two-thirds of the total number of Councillors, which means Councillors who are entitled to sit and vote. That since out of the total strength of 38 one of the Councillor had resigned earlier, the Council consisted of 37 members only. That two-thirds of this 37 would mean a voting of 24.66 per cent. That since 25 persons had voted, there was a clear majority of two-thirds, and the resolution was, therefore, valid. The respondents on the other hand have contended that it is true that but of the total 38 Councillors, one had resigned, but they have maintained that in computing the two-thirds of the total number of Councillors, the vacant seat must be taken into account. In other words, the voting must be not less than two-thirds of the total seats i.e. 38, in which case the requisite votes required would be 25.33. That as the voting by 25 members was less than 25.33 the rejection of the motion by respondent No.2 was proper. The dispute, therefore, clearly turns on the interpretation of S. 55 of the Municipalities Act and more particularly as to what is meant by the words, "by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Councillors" appearing therein.