SOUGAIJAM TOMBA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. T. Nandakumar, learned Sr. counsel as well as Mr. L. Shyamkishore, learned Govt. Advocate at length. Both have expressed that the disposal of this matter may not be delayed and it will be in the interest of justice to decide right now.

(2.) We have examined relevant provisions of law applicable to the present case. The case relates specifically to the removal of Chair Person and Vice-Chair Person of Bishenpur Municipal Council by a resolution duly passed by members present on 24.1.1997. No confidence motion/ requisition was moved by 7 Councillors of the said Municipality by letter dated 6th January, 1997 to the Executive Officer of the. Municipal Council. Notice was duly issued calling for a session for the purpose of discussing the issue of removal of Chair Person and Vice-Chair Person. To make the matter short, it may be stated that when no confidence motion was taken up, the session convened in this regard was presided over by the Executive Officer of the Council. The petitioners contend that the Executive Officer being an employee of the Council cannot preside over the business of the Council. It is contended that no confidence motion to remove Chair Person or Vice-Person is clearly the business the Council inasmuch as the matter is directly related to member of the Council. Relevant for the purpose of deciding this case is Section 31 of the Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994 which is as under: "31. (1) The State Government may remove by a notification in the Official Gazette, from office the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson, in pursuance of a resolution passed by majority of the total number of the Councillors and supported by not less than two third of the Councillors present and voting at a meeting specially convened for the purpose under sub-section (2). (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1) a meeting of the Nagar Panchayat or of the Council shall be held in the following manner, namely : (i) the meeting shall be convened by the Executive Officer on a requisition signed by not less than one fifth of the total number of Councillors constituting the Nagar Panchayat or the Council for the time being; (ii) the notice of such a meeting specifying the time and place thereof shall be despatched by the Executive Officer to every Councillor ten days before the meeting; (iii) the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson, as the case may be, against whom the resolution referred to in sub-section (1) is to be moved, shall not preside over the meeting; Subsequently this Section was amended in 1996. En terms of the amendment "every Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if the resolution expressed want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of the total number of Councillors constituting the Council or the Nagar Panchayat at the meeting specially convened for the purpose". As stated above notices were duly issued by the Executive Officer convening a special session for the pupose of removal of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson in the present case.

(3.) By letter dated 10,1.97 vide Annexure A/3 the Executive Officer had sought clarification as to who should preside over the session during which no confidence motion against Chairperson and Vice Chairperson was to be held. On receipt of the said letter the Jt. Director (MAHUD) wrote to the Executive Officer stating that : "the provisions of the Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994 do not provide clearly for the situations mentioned in your above letter, clarifications are being sought form the Government" Thereafter a message was received from the Commissioner (MAHUD), Government of Manipur on 22nd January, 1997. Annexure - A/5 as under : ''NO. .2/77/70- MAHUD DT. 22.1.97 REF, MESSAGE NO. 16.3.94 -DCB/NA DTD 14.1.97 REGARDING PRESIDING OFFICERS OF MEETING OF NO CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST CHAIRPERSON/ VICE- CHAIRPERSON OF M. C. STATE GOVT. IS TO APPOINT PRESIDING OFFICERS ONLY IN R/O ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON. MEETING OF COUNCILLORS FOR NO CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST CHAIRPERSON/VICE-CHAIRPERSON IS CONVENED BY E.O. CONCERNED UNDER SECTION 31(2) OF M. ACT, 94, SUCH MEETING MAY BE PRESIDED BY THE E.O, CONCERNED. FOR N.A." The above message also is in the line of the earlier clarification given by the Joint Director. Further the Commissioner stated in his message that "such meeting may be presided by the E.O. concerned". That is how the Executive Officer presided over the specially convened session for the above purpose. Mr. Shyamkishore, learned Govt. Advocate submits that since there is no clear provision in the aforesaid Act and since the Executive Officer had acted under the direction of the Commissioner, there is no infirmity in convening the special session and in presiding over the said session by the Executive Officer, Section 41(1) of the Act states :