ASHOK MANIKLAL HARKUT Vs. COLLECTOR AMRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Ashok Maniklal H. was elected as President of the Municipal Council Chandur Bazar, District Amravati. On, 12th of June, 1987 a requisition incorporating a proposal to move a resolution to remove the president was served by 12 Councillors on the collector of the District , requesting him to convene a special meeting for the said purpose ,within 10 days of the receipt of the requisition .on 17th of June, 1987 thee collector gave intimation about the said resolution to the president. On the same day he issued notice calling a meeting of no confidence ,on 30th of June 1987. The meeting was accordingly held on 30th June, 1987. This meeting was attended by 19 elected and 2 co -opted councillors .Thirteen elected councillors voted in favour if the resolution, where as six voted against it, Since the resolution was carried out by a majority of not less than two-third s of the total number of councillors (excluding co-opted councillors), presiding officer declared that the motion of no confidence was duly passed and the petitioner has ceased to be the president of the said municipal Council, It is this resolution of the Municipal Council, which is challenged in the present petition.

(2.) It is contended by Shri B.P. Jaiswal learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the total number of the elected Counsillors of the Chandur Bazar Municipial Council, was 20, and therefore, 12 Councillors, who voted in favour of the resolution did not constitute two-third majority of the total number of the Councillors (excluding co-opted Councillors) within the meaning of the said expression, as used in section 55(1) of the Maharashtra Municipalties Act, 1965 (hereinafter Referred to to as the act). It is the case of the petitioner that though one seat was vacant and the total number of elected Councillors then existing was only 19, still voting by fourteen Councillors which was twenty. Therefore, the resolution was not legally carried out. It was also contended that requisition for calling a special meeting was served on the Collector on 12th of June, 1987. Under sub-section (3) of section 55 it was obligatory on the part of the Collector to convene a special meeting of the Council within 10 days of the receipt of the requisition. The meeting which was convened by the Collector on 30th June, 1987 was beyond the said period of 10 days and on that count also the meeting held and the resolution passed are illegal. A contention is also raised that while counting the two-third majority, the fraction cannot be ignored and, therefore the resolution was not passed by the requisite majority.

(3.) On the other hand it is contended by Shri A.S. Bobde, learned Advocate General, that the expression used in section 55 of the said Act i.e. total number of Councillors, can only mean total number of Councillors (other than co-opted Councillors) who are entitled to sit and vote at the relevant time. If the interpretation suggested by the petitioner of the said phrase is accepted, then the provisions of the Act will become unworkable. He then contended that the expression convene as used in section 55 only means that a meeting should be called and the notice of the meeting should be issued within 10 days of the receipt of the requisition by the Collector. It does not mean that the meeting itself should be held within 10 days. He also contended that while counting two-third majority a fraction if any, will have to be ignored inspite of his contention the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in (Bhaskar & another v. S.G. Daithankr Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhandara and 23 others) 1970 Mh.L.J. 953. On the other hand learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon the subsequent decision of another Division Bench in (Shivdas Govind Lanjewar v. The Municipal Council, Bhandara & others) 1986 Mh.L.J. 216.