AJIT SINGH Vs. NAGAR PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING lost the battle of ballot, the petitioner shifted the arena of the dispute. He has preferred a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He challenges a resolution by which a vote of no confidence was passed against him. This is annexure P/1. This was passed on 18th of May, 1995. The challenge is made on the ground that the petitioner was not served with a notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It is further argued that meeting was not held in accordance with provision of the Act. It is worthwhile to notice that there are 15 members of the Nagar Panchayat, Bhitarwar. A motion with a view to oust an office holder i. e. President or vice-president has to be carried out by 2/3rd majority. In this case, ten members voted in favour of the motion and as noticed above the resolution was duly carried out. The copy of this resolution as noticed above is annexure P/1.

(2.) BEFORE noticing various contentions, it would be apt to notice the provision of Section 47 of the Act. This provision reads as under :

(3.) THE counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that the only requirement of law is to despatch the notice ten clear days before holding of the meeting. According to them it is not the requirement of law that between the service of the notice and the holding of the meeting, the period of ten days should intervene. It is the further case of the respondents that the Chairman of the meeting can always be elected by the House because the Vice-President is supposed to preside over the meeting when the President is not present. In a meeting where no confidence motion is to be considered, the president is present and therefore, Section 59 which provides Vice-President would preside is not to apply. It has also been argued that the petitioner having participated in the meeting and having raised no objection to short notice or to any other matter is not within his rights to raise the objection with regard to short service of notice in the present petition.