VIJAY V RAUT Vs. COLLECTOR CHANDRAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD parties.

(2.) THIS petition takes exception to the order passed on 30th October, 1998 by the Collector, Chandrapur refusing to act upon the requisition, which was submitted by some members of the Municipal Council, Chandrapur, requesting to convene a meeting of Chandrapur Municipal Council to consider a vote of no-confidence. The Collector, Chandrapur, the respondent No. 1 in this petition, observed that in response to the earlier requisition, which was presented to the Collector on 29th June, 1998, a special meeting of the council was convened on 6th July, 1998 and the resolution was not moved in that meeting. Therefore, the prohibition contained in section 55 (6) (b) of the Maharashtra municipalities, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships act, 1965 operates; and no fresh resolution can be brought before the Council during the tenure of the present president s term.

(3.) SHRI Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that in the earlier meeting, which took place on 6th July, 1998, the resolution was read over by the Presiding Officer and, therefore, it was placed before the House for consideration. According to his contention, the resolution was moved in the meeting and it was adjourned by the Presiding Officer, accepting the request of some other members and that by itself will not wipe out effect of moving of the resolution, which was complete by the act of the Presiding Officer and the prohibition contained in sub-section (6) of section 55 of the said Act would not, therefore, be applicable and the collector erred in refusing to act upon the requisition. Shri Deshpande further contended that right to remove an elected representative is one of the valuable rights under the Election law and it can be equated with the right to elect a person to the said office and it could not be defeated on mere technicalities when there is no specific prohibition in the Statute. He further contended that when a meeting is called specially to consider a motion of no-confidence, every member is in know of the fact well in advance that the business to be transacted is consideration of the motion, which is proposed by some members of the council. Reading of the resolution by Presiding Officer was nothing but moving of the resolution. Therefore, Collector should have convened the meeting as per new requisition since bar was not applicable.