NARAYANDAS SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under A. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of appropriate writ to declare the proceedings of the meeting of Nagar Panchayat, Nasrullganj held on 24-9-97 vide Annexure-P-1 as illegal and further to issue a writ prohibiting the President of the said Nagar Panchayat to function as such.

(2.) The essential facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was elected as Councillor from Ward No. 8 of the Nagar Panchayat, Nasrullaganj, and thereafter, he was elected as the Vice President of the said Nagar Panchayat. It is stated that he had been working in the interest of public and from time to time was exposing the misdeeds in the corporation which had caused annoyance to the President and a limited number of members who contrived a situation to bring a no confidence motion against him. It is putforth that the President, respondent No. 3 herein, does not have the credentials to function as the President but is still continuing in the post. It is pleaded that the petitioner received a notice dated 6-9-97 purported to have been signed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Nasrullaganj indicating that he had been nominated as the authority to convene the meeting and preside over it for the purpose of no confidence motion against the petitioner as envisaged under S. 43-A of the M.P. Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The date of meeting was fixed for 24-9-1997. It is averred in the writ petition that the competent authority did not issue notices to all the Councillors but only to 14 elected Councillors leaving behind the nominated and the ex-officio Councillors. It is also setforth that no motion of confidence was moved in the meeting as required under the law and he was also not given an opportunity to state his point of view. It is also stated that if discussion had taken place, there would have been a change in the ultimate result of the meeting and as that had not been done the proceeding of the meeting of no confidence motion is vitiated. It is also stated that the respondent No. 3 is not entitled to hold the post of President as he has not been elected through the direct Election but was directly elected by the Councillors.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 3 contenting, inter alia, that the petitioner and all other Councillors received the notices signed by the S.D.O. in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and the motion of no confidence against the petitioner was signed and presented by 10 elected Councillors which meets the requirement of law. It is also stated that the petitioner did not oppose to or objected to the contents, veracity or legality of the notice relating to the motion of no confidence. It is averred that the motion of no confidence was placed on the table of the House on 24-9-97 and the petitioner was present in the House when the motion was tabled and considered for discussion. It is also pleaded that 'every Councillor' means elected Councillors and does not include the other Councillors. It is further stated that the meeting was presided over by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the petitioner did not choose to speak his view point. The further stand in the return is that the minutes of the meeting clearly indicates that time was devoted, permitting the Councillors to speak and make up their mind, and thereafter, voting had taken place. In the voting 11 Councillors out of 14 voted in favour of motion of no confidence and three voted against the motion. As far as the continuance of respondent No. 3 as President is concerned, it has been putforth that he is continuing by virtue of the transitory provisions which have come into effect from 21-4-1997.