NAURANGLAL SAKTI Vs. BHANU PRATAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of quo warranto questioning the validity of the appointment of respondent No. 1, Bhanu Pratap, as Vice-President of the Sakti Municipal Council, by the second respondent, namely, the President of the Council.

(2.) THE Sakti Municipal Council is a body constituted under the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 and continued by section 2 (2)(ii) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, after the coming into force of that Act repealing inter alia the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922. After the general election to the Council in 1956 under the Act of 1922, one Shri Sahu was appointed as the Vice-President of the Council. He resigned on 12th August 1934. THE casual vacancy thus occurring in the office of the Vice-President was required to be filled in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act, namely, the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, as provided by section 2 (2) (ii) of the 1961-Act. Section 19 of the 1922-Act laid down that upon the occurrence of any vacancy in the office of the President or Vice President, a new President or Vice-President shall be appointed or elected in the manner provided by section 18. Section 18, as originally enacted, empowered the President to appoint two Vica-Presidents from amongst the members of the Committee, or from other persons residing in the Municipality possessing the qualifications of a voter under section 12 (I) and not disqualified under section 15. This section was amended by Act No. 14 of 1958, and thereafter, according to the amended provision, the Vice-Presidents had to be elected by the members of the Committee After the ameadmet, the President had no power to appoint any Vice-President. It was this amended section 18 which was operative when the 1961-Act came into force. THE vacancy caused by the resignation of Shri Sahu could, therefore, be tilled in 1964 only by the process of election and not by nomination by the President. But on 19th August 1934 the President of the Council, purporting to act under section 18 of the Act of 1922, as it stood before it was amended by Act No. 14 of 1958, appointed the respondent No. i, Bhanu Pratap as the Vice-Presidant. This appointment was notified by the Collector, Bilaspur, on 25th December 1964, and the notification expressly mentioned that the President "has been pleased to appoint Shri Bhanu Pratap son of Shyam Sundar as Vice-President of the Municipal Council, Sakti, in exercise of his powers conferred by section 18 (before its amendment in 1958) of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 '.

(3.) THE emphasis in the return filed by the respondents and in the arguments advanced by Shri Dhaimadhikari on behalf of the respondent No. 1 was on the locus standi of the petitioner to file this application for the issue of a writ of quo warranto. It was said that the petitioner is a cousin of Tejlal, the President of the Municipal Council, and resides in the same building where Tejlal lives; that ten out of fifteen Councillors of the Municipal Council sent a requisition under section 47 of the 1961-Act to the Chief Municipal Officer for convening a meeting of the Council for discussing a motion of no confidence against Tejlal, the President; that on 29th June 1966 a meeting of the ten Councillors was held and the motion of no-confidence against Tejlal was pasted thereat; and that the applicant filed this petition on '20th June 1966 and prayed for an interim direction restraining Bhanu Pratap from functioning as a Councillor just for the purpose of "protecting his cousin" and for preventing Bhanu Pratap from participating in the meeting of the Councillors which was then about to be held for discussing the motion of no-confidence. Learned counsel proceeded to say that,the appointment of Bhanu Pratap was made on 19th August 1964 and this petition was filed nearly eighteen months after the appointment was notified in the Gazette; that if there was any illegality in the appointment, the petitioner was all along aware of it as both he and his cousin, the President Tejlal, resided in the same building; and that this delay disentitled the applicant to any relief and his motives in, filing this application were suspicious. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied on the statement contained in paragraph 281 at pp. 148-149 of volume 11 of the Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd edition).