DIPAK CHAKRABORTY Vs. BOARD OF COUNCILLORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner, the Chairman of Bhadreswar Municipality, has challenged the resolution adopted on 24th March, 2012 by the Councillors of the said Municipality removing him from the post. Facts which require to be considered are that the total strength of the Councillors in the said Municipality is 22. Pursuant to the election in 2010, on 18th June, 2010 Board was constituted. The petitioner was elected the Chairman. Subsequent to the election of Councillors and after formation of the Board, one Councilior expired. Therefore, at present the Board consists of 21 Councillors. On 20th March, 2012, 9 Councillors issued a notice for removal of the petitioner from the post of Chairman. On 24th March, 2012, 10 members adopted a resolution for removal of the petitioner. Nine Councillors voted against the resolution. 2 Councillors abstained from voting. After resolution was passed, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 24th March, 2012, to the District Magistrate, Hooghly, the respondent No.3, being Annexure P-4 to the writ petition, alleging that his removal by less than fifty per cent of the elected councillors was unethical and against the scheme of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (for short "the Act"), particularly Section 18(3) thereof. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandernagore, Hooghly, by memo dated 26th March, 2012 directed the Executive Officer of the Municipality, the respondent No.4, to take charge from the petitioner and hand over the same to the Vice-Chairman. It has been stated that on 26th March, 2012 the respondent No.4 had issued the impugned letter requesting the petitioner to hand over charge on 26th March, 2012 at 5 P.M.

(2.) MR . Hirak Mitra, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, relying on the statements in the writ petition and in the affidavit in reply had submitted that Section 18(3) of the Act along with the proviso should be given a harmonious construction. No part of the statute can be disregarded. Though Section 18(3) was amended, as even after amendment proviso remains intact, it explains what the parent section is. Submission was amendment of Section 18(3) did not meet the desired objective and even after amendment, total number of elected members present and voting by them means total number of elected members. In this regard the provisions contained in West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006 were referred to. Learned Senior Advocate had relied on the judgment by the House of Lords in Jennings v. Kelly, 1939 (4) All ER 4 in support of the proposition that proviso controls the section.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the parties have also relied on the judgment passed in Bhagawan Dutt Tiwari & Ors. v. Kabita Sarkar & Ors., 2002 (1) CHN 327 in support of their arguments.