BABOO LAL CHOUBEY Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner, who was elected in 1959 as the president of the Municipal Council, Chhuikhadan, prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing a resolution passed by the council on 4th May 1964 expressing no confidence in him.

(2.) THE applicant contends that there was no requisition at all as required by section 47 (2) (i) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act)for the convening of a meeting at which the motion of no-confidence was passed; that the notice of the meeting was not given to him and other Councillors ten clear days before the meeting; and that the meeting was presided over by one of the councillors and not by the Vice-President of the Council, who was present at the meeting and who alone under Sections 52 and 59 of the Act could preside over the meeting.

(3.) THERE is no substance in any of these contentious, and this application must be dismissed As has been stated in the return and as is clear from the record, a requisition for the calling of a meeting for discussing a motion of no-confidence against the applicant was received by the Chief Municipal Officer as required by section 47 (2) of the Act, and it was on the receipt of this requisition that the Chief municipal Officer convened a meeting of the Council on 4th May 1964 and a notice of this meeting was sent out to the Municipal Councillors on 22nd April 1964. An attempt was made to serve the petitioner with the notice on 23rd April 1964, but he refused to accept the same. Under Section 47 (2) (ii) of the Act, the notice of the meeting called for discussing the motion of no-confidence has to he despatched by the Chief Municipal Officer to every Councillor ten clear days before the meeting. It is not necessary that the notice should actually he served on every councillor ten clear days before the meeting. Here, the notice to every Councillor was sent out on 22nd April 1964 itself, and even a service of the notice was attempted to be made on the applicant on 23 April 1964. Thus, the grievance of the applicant that the meeting held on 4th May 1964 was convened contrary to section 47 (2) is without any foundation.