OM PRAKASH Vs. COLLECTOR GUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Order shall also govern the disposal of M.P. No. 123/87 between the same parties.

(2.) Omprakash who is the petitioner in these two writ petitions, was the President of the Municipal Council, Ashok Nagar, District Guna. This Council had 24 members. 13 of the members tendered their resignations, to the Collector Guna. These resignations were accepted by the Collector and casual vacancy caused on account of these resignation was notified in the gazette by Notification dated 16-9-86, as contemplated by Sub-Sec. (2) of S.40 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Subsequently, by Notification dated 12-1-1987, in exercise of powers conferred on it under S.337 of the Act, the State Govt. dissolved the Council. Acting under the powers conferred on it under S.328(6)(b) of the Act, the State Government appointed an Administrator.

(3.) Notification dated 16-9-86, whereby the vacancy was notified, has been challenged in this writ petition whereas the orders passed by the State Govt. under Ss.337 and 328(6)(b) of the Act have been challenged in writ petition No. 123/87. It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that S.40(1) of the Act contemplates that any councillor may resign his office by tendering his resignation in writing to the President and since in the instant case, the resignations of the 13 councillors were not tendered to the President, but were tendered to the Collector, i.e. the prescribed authority under S.40 of the Act directly, these resignations could not have been accepted by the Collector and consequently the notification of occurrence of casual vacancy issued under S.40(2) of the Act as also orders of the State Govt. dissolving the Council and appointing an Administrator are invalid. We find it difficult to agree with this submission.