MANJU RAI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief (s) :

(2.) It is submitted by Counsel for Petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, an ordinance has been promulgated by the State Govt., thereby amending Sec. 42"A(1)(a) and in the opening paragraph, for the words "two thirds", the words "three fourths" have been substituted and (b) in clause (i) of the proviso, for the words "two years", the words "three years" have been substituted.

(3.) It is submitted that Petitioner is holding the Post of President, Municipal Council, Damoh from 5"8"2022. It appears that after the completion of tenure of two years, a no confidence motion was moved and accordingly, by order dated 23"8"2024, the Collector, Damoh authorized the Add. Collector, Damoh. Accordingly, the Add. Collector, Damoh convened the meeting to consider the no confidence motion on 4" 9"2024. It is submitted by Counsel for Petitioner, that in view of The Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2024, no confidence motion cannot be considered as clause (i) of proviso to Sec. 43"A(1) of M.P. Municipalities Act has now been amended and the words "two years" have been substituted by words "three years". It is submitted that the aforesaid ordinance is Retrospective in operation or in alternative it is Retroactive in operation, but it is not Prospective in operation. It is further submitted that in various other Districts, where no confidence motion was moved against the sitting President, the Collectors have dropped the proceedings by treating the Ordinance as Retrospective in nature, therefore it is clear that the Petitioner is also entitled for the same treatment. To buttress his contentions, the Counsel for Petitioner has relied upon the Judgments passed by Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Soni Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2013) 14 SCC 696, SEBI Vs. Classic Credit Ltd. reported in (2018) 13 SCC 1, T. Kaliamurthi and another Vs. Five Gori Thaikkal Wakf and others reported in (2008) 9 SCC 306, SEBI Vs. Rajkumar Nagpal and others reported in (2023) 8 SCC 274, Shyabuddinsab Mohidinsab Akki Vs. Gadag"Betgeri Municipal Borough and others reported in 1955 SCC OnLine SC 25, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 602, Videocon International Ltd. Vs. SEBI reported in (2015) 4 SCC 33, Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. and another Vs. Assam SEB and others reported in (2019) 19 SCC 529, Gottumukkala Venkata Krishanmraju Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2019) 17 SCC 590 and Allahabad High Court in the case of Anuj Kumar and another Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine All 66 and District Board, Muzaffarnagar Vs. The Upper India Sugar Mills Ltd., Khatauli reported in AIR 1957 All 527.