THAKUR BUDHESHWARSINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by Takur Budheshwarsingh under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the resolution passed by Respondent No. 2 in its meeting held on the 19th January 1958 expressing no confidence in the Petitioner and the order of the State Government, dated 26 -4 -1958 removing the Petitioner from the chairmanship of the Respondent, Janapada Sabha.

(2.) THE Petitioner has urged that he had incurred the displeasure of the Congress party for having successfully sought election to the Madhya Pradesh State Assembly in the year 1957 against an official Congress candidate when not adopted as a candidate by the said party. It is urged that since then there have been regular concerted plans to oust him from the chairmanship of the Sabha, a post held by him since his election to the same in the year 1955. He, therefore, urges that the impugned resolution expressing no confidence in him was mala fide inasmuch as the same was passed without any prior notice of charges levelled against him. He further urges that the State Government too lent its support to the aforesaid plan to oust him and without making due enquiries and giving him any reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action abused the powers vested in it under the Local Government Act by passing the order, dated 26 -4 -1958 removing him from the chairmanship. He claims that both, the resolution, dated 19 -1 -1958 as also the order of the State Government, dated 26 -4 -1958 being illegal and without jurisdiction ought to be set aside.

(3.) THEN comes into the picture the resolution, dated 19 -1 -1958. Here again we are satisfied that the Petitioner did not play the correct and proper role. The relevant provisions in the matter of meetings of a Sabha are contained in Sections 34 and 35 of the Local Government Act. Admittedly the meeting sought to be called for 19 -1 -1958 was a requisition i.e., a special meeting and the requisition for the same was in order as provided in Section 35 of the Act as it was made by not less than 1/5th of the Councillors. But he refused to call the meeting on the ground that he was not satisfied with the genuineness of the desire of the signatories to requisition inasmuch as in his view they displayed a vacillating mind in the matter and, besides, the signatories did not form a 2/3rd majority as required by Clause (b) of the Sub -section (3) of Section 18 of the Local Government Act. Both the reasons, on their very face, were untenable. It was not necessary to have a 2/3rd majority for calling the requisition, for, as already stated, the majority required for the purpose was only 1/5th. The 2/3rd majority was required for purposes of expressing their opinion on the undesirability of the Petitioner to continue to hold the post of the Chairman. Thus his avoidance to call the meeting as per requisition amounted to "his being incapable of acting" within the meaning of the Sub -section (2) of Section 34 of the Local Government Act, entitling the Deputy Chairman to call the meeting as was done. There is, therefore, no force in the contentions raised by the Petitioner to challenge the validity of the meeting.