TEJLAL Vs. NANDKISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the President of the Municipal Council, Sakti, District Bilaspur. On 2-6-1966, the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and 6 to 10 and 14, who are councillors of the Municipal Council, gave a requisition to the respondent No. 15, the Chief Municipal Officer, to convene a meeting of the Council for moving a motion of no-confidence against the President as is required under section 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. It appears that the Chief Municipal Officer failed to convene the meeting on one pretext or other. It also appears that the said councillors brought the fact of the failure of the Chief Municipal Officer to summon the meeting to the notice of the President and he was requested to convene the said meeting. THE President, however, expressed his inability to convene the meeting, as he was not authorised under law to do so. When the Chief Municipal Officer failed to convene the meeting, the councillors on their own convened the meeting and passed a resolution of no-confidence against the petitioner. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the Resolution, dated 29-6 L966, and further seeks a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents and the State Government from giving any effect to the above-said resolution.

(2.) SHRI R.S. Dabir, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted before us that the only manner in which a meeting for moving a motion of no-confidence against the President can be called is the manner prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 47 of the Municipalities Act, 1961. Under that sub-section the meeting can only be convened by the Chief Municipal Officer on the requisition signed by not less than one sixth of the total number of the Councillors constituting the Council. A meeting not so convened is not a meeting valid under the Municipalities Act and any action taken in that meeting is ineffective and null and void. SHRI Dabir urges that the provisions of section 47 (2) are mandatory and non-compliance of those provisions renders any action taken unenforceable in law.

(3.) SHRI Dharmadhikari also drew our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in Narasimhiah v. Singri Gowda(AIR 1966 SC 330) wherein it was held that where some of the councillors of the municipality received less than three clear days' notice of a special meeting to discuses a resolution to express no-confidence in the President and in the strength of 20, 15 out of 19 councillors who attended the meeting voted for the resolution, the proceedings of the meeting were not prejudicially affected by the irregularity in the service of the notice and the resolution passed there was not invalidated. It may be noted that, in that case, the meeting was convened by the proper authority and the notices were also served on the councillors concerned. The only defect pointed out was that some of the councillors had not received three clear days' notice. In the Municipalities Act under consideration before the Supreme Court section 36 of the Act provided that no resolution of the municipal council shall be deemed invalid on account of any irregularity in the service of notice upon any councillor or member provided that the proceedings of the municipal council or committee were not prejudicially affected by such irregularity. Because of this provision their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the matter from the view point of irregularity of the notice and the prejudice that could have been caused. That decision can be of no help for deciding the question before us. The provisions of section 47 (2) of the Municipalities Act are mandatory and their strict compliance is necessary.