BINODINI DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner working as Chairperson of Angul Municipality is before this Court questioning the correctness of the notice of no-confidence motion No. 1463 dated 12.09.2011 issued by Opposite Party No. 3-Collector, Angul and the second proposed requisition dated 05.09.2011 for motion of no-confidence under the provisions of Municipality Act, 1950 and rules made thereunder.

(2.) Heard Mrs. Bharti Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party Nos. 5 to 14 and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

(3.) Petitioner challenges the correctness of the second requisition dated 05.09.2011 for moving no-confidence motion against her without proposed requisition by one third of the Councillors to hold such meeting when the first proposed resolution regarding want of no-confidence against the post of Chairperson of Angul Municipality could not be materialized and dropped due to lack of quorum. The said action of opposite parties for the second time is violative of the provisions of Section 54 of the Municipal Act and Rules made thereunder. It is contended the Annexure-1 produced is only the proposed requisition, which was not appended to the proposed resolution signed by 10 Councillors which has to be passed by the Chairperson has not been done in the present case. Therefore, Deputy Collector convening the meeting for the second time for want of no-confidence motion is not legal and valid in one calendar year. It is also further contended subsequent events pursuant to Annexure-1 are liable to be quashed since the requisition Annexure-1 itself is defective.