DEO DUTT SHARMA Vs. COLLECTOR AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ application by Shri Deo Dutt Sharma under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is common ground between the parties that the petitioner was elected as a member of the Municipal Committee, Ajmer, under sec. 7 and 8 of the Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation, VI of 1925. The said municipal committee consisted of 32 elected members arid it began to function from 10th February, 1957. The elected Chairman of this Committee was one Shri Jwala Prasad but he tendered his resignation, and after its acceptance, the petitioner was elected to the office of chairman. A few members of the committee elected Shri P. C. Jain also as the chairman but his election was set aside by a decision of this Court in writ Petition No. 1 of 1959 decided on 24. 4. 59. The petitioner-then took charge of the office 6f chairman on 25. 5. 59. Thereafter, the Ajmer-Merwara Municipalities Regulation VI of 1925 was repealed by the Rajasthan Municipalities Act No. 38 of 1959, which will hereinafter be called as the 'act', and the old municipal committee,ajmer, started functioning as Municipal Council for the city of Ajmer under the new Act, from 17. 10. 59. On 30th October, 1959, the State of Rajasthan appointed the Collector, Ajmer, as the "prescribed authority" to whom a motion of no-confidence in the Chairman of the Municipal Council could be presented according to sec. 72 of the Act. On the same day, 17 members of the Municipal Council signed a motion of no-confidence and presented it in the office of the Collector, Ajmer. A meeting of the Municipal Council was then convened and held at the Municipal Council-office, Ajmer, on 27th November, 1959, and it was presided over by the Collector. After a sharp debate, for and against the motion, when the Collector proceeded to put the motion to vote, the petitioner raised an objection that 5 of the members in that meeting suffered from disqualification under clause (xiv) of sec. 26 the Act and therefore they should not be allowed to vote. This contention was ruled out by the President on the ground that a member did not automatically cease to function on account of any disqualification under sec. 26 and that he could continue to function till his removal by the Government under sec. 63. After this ruling of the President, the petitioner and his supporters left the meeting in protest. The no-confidence motion was then carried out by the remaining 18 members. On the next day, i. e. , 28th November, 1959, the, Collector issued a memo informing the Municipal Council that Shri Deo Dutt Sharma should be deemed to have vacated his office with effect from 3 P. M. on 27th November, 1959. IT is in order to challenge the correctness of the said ruling of the Collector that the present application has been filed.

(3.) COMING to the second point, the petitioner has produced certified copies of no less than 17 documents to prove that Sarva Shri Khan Chand, Bhola Ram, Arjun Das, Sugan Chand and Devilal were in arrears in the payment of municipal tax and dues in excess of one year's demand on the date on which no-confidence motion was carried out. Document No. 3 shows that on 18th November, 1959, the Collector, Ajmer, had written to the Chairman Municipal Council, Ajmer, to furnish a certificate as to how many members of the Council suffered from disqualification under sec. 26 of the Act. Document No. 4, shows that the Commissioner Municipal Council, Ajmer, supplied to. the Collector detailed particulars of arrears which were due from the said 5 members till the noon of 25th November, 1959. Learned counsel for the contending non-petitioners have cast a doubt if this list had reached the hands of the Collector before the special meeting for no-confidence motion was held. It is urged that even if this information reached him, it could not be in his possession before 26th November,1959, and the meeting could not be postponed after that date. It will be discussed, later on, as to what the Collector Ought to have done on receiving this information, but there is no reason to disbelieve the petitioner when he says that it was received by the Collector on 25th November, 1959. Document No. 3 shows that the Collector himself wanted the information to be furnished to him latest by 25th November, 1959, and when document No. 4 bears the date 25th November, 1959, it should be presumed that the Commissioner Municipal Council dispatched this list to the Collector and it must have reached his office on the same day. The Collector has not filed any reply to show, if this list was not received by him before he went to preside over the meeting. It appears from this list that an amount of Rs. 446-92 np. Was shown outstanding against Shri Khan Chand for about 8 years, Rs. 25/- were shown outstanding against Shri Bhola Ram for the last 4 years, Rs. 4l59-25 np. were shown outstanding against Shri Arjun Das from 1st September, 1948 to 31st March, 1958, and it was also shown that a suit for this amount was pending in a civil court. Shri Sugan Chand was shown in arrears of Rs. 100/- from October; 1957, while three amounts totalling Rs. 4068 80 np. were shown outstanding against Shri Devilal from 1951 52 and 1952-53. Documents Nos. 5 to 19 further show how communications were addressed on behalf of the Municipal Committee to the said 5 members for payment of arrears from time to time. Since the suit against Shri Arjun Das is pending in a civil court and he has denied his liability to pay the amount claimed from him and since his single vote is not going to make any material difference so far as this case is concerned, I do not think it proper to express any opinion about the arrears which are said to be due to him, but as regards the remaining 4 members Sarva Shri Khan Chand, Bhola Ram, Sugan Chand and Devilal, it has already been noted above that they have not cared to appear and contest the allegations made against them. A perusal of the said documents apparently shows that they were in arrears in the payment of tax and other dues in excess of much more than one year's demand and, therefore, they did suffer from disqualification within the meaning of sec. 26 (xiv) of the Act, which runs as follows: - "26. General disqualifications for membersa person, notwithstanding that be is otherwise qualified, shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of a board - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (xiv) Who is in arrears in the payment of any tax or other dues in excess of one year's demand: Provided that . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (e) the disqualification mentioned in clause (xiv) shall cease as soon as the arrears are paid. " A plain reading of the above provision shows that if any person is in arrears in the payment of any tax or other amount due to the municipality in excess of one year's demand, he would be disqualified not only from being elected as a member but even after the election he would be disqualified for being a member of the board. This disqualification would, however, continue only for the period during which the arrears are not paid. If the arrears are paid, then the disqualification would cease from that moment. It may be pointed out that even the contending respondents have not averred if the said 5 members had paid off the arrears before 27th November, 1959, and therefore even if the case of Shri Arjun Das be left out of consideration, it is clear that atleast 4 of the members did suffer from disqualification when they voted against the petitioner on 27th November, 1959. This brings for consideration the third point set out above.