STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. BENI PD RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 and 2 herein who are Municipal Councillors, were elected as President and Vice President respectively at the election held on 12-2-1995. 12 Councillors gave requisition for moving resolution expressing no confidence in them. The Chief Municipal Officer convened a meeting on 6-5-1995 for consideration of the motions. The President was absent at the meeting, but the Vice President was present. The Councillors unanimously elected third appellant, one among the Councillors, to preside over the meeting. Resolutions expressing no confidence in the President and Vice President respectively were taken up separately for consideration and both the resolutions were passed in the presence of 29 Councillors, 23 Councillors voting in favour of the resolutions. The President and Vice President jointly filed the writ petition challenging the legality of the resolutions on the ground that proceedings were illegal inasmuch as the Vice President ought to have presided and the Councillors could not have elected a Councillor to preside over the meeting and that minutes of meeting had not been recorded as required under Section 62 of the M.P. Municipalities Act 1961 (for short the Act.).

(2.) The learned single Judge held that the provisions of Section 47 should be followed strictly, that as per Section 47(2)(iii) when motion of no confidence is moved against the President, he could not preside but the Vice President should have presided, that the pendency of motion against the Vice President did not render his office vacant, that only after lawful motion is passed against him, his office shall fall vacant and, therefore, at the time of passing of the motion against the President, an elected Councillor could not have presided and the conduct of the meeting was illegal and' the motion has to be quashed. The learned Judge also held that the minutes were not recorded in accordance with Section 62 inasmuch names of the Councillors voting were not recorded and this also vitiated the proceedings. It appears that in view of the peculiar situation of resolutions having been presented against both the President and the Vice President, the learned Advocate General suggested that fresh meeting could be held under the Chairmanship of the Collector and this was agreed to by the learned single Judge who directed a meeting to be convened on 19-7-1995 under the Chairmanship of the Collector to consider the no confidence motions afresh. The State Government, the Chief Municipal Officer and the Councillor who presided over the meeting have filed the present appeal challenging the order of the learned single Judge.

(3.) In view of the importance of the legal questions involved in this appeal, the Division Bench which admitted the appeal, referred the case to a Full Bench. We may incidentally mention that the respondents have filed an appeal challenging the specific directions issued by the learned single Judge in regard to the fresh meeting. That appeal is not before us.