SANWARMAL Vs. DIRECTOR OF LOCAL BODIES JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is prayed that a declaration be made that the no-confidence motion passed against the petitioner on 26th May, 1959, is illegal and void and that the respondents be restrained from enforcing the orders of the Director of Local Bodies dated 4th June, 1959, and 22nd July, 1959, as also the order of the Collector dated 23rd July, 1959.

(2.) THE facts which emerge out of the various affidavits filed by the parties may be stated as follows: THE petitioner was elected Chairman of the Municipal Board, Rajgarh, in October, 1957. ; THE total strength of the Board consists of 12 members, out of whom ten are elected and two nominated. Respondents Nos. 3 to 10 were elected and Mangla Ram and Parbati Devi were nominated members. On the 7th of May, 1959, five members of the Board made a written requisition to the Chairman to call for a special general meeting of the Board as they wanted to move a vote of no-confidence against the Chairman. This requisition was made under sec. 26 (2) of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951 (Act No. XXIII of 1951 - hereinafter called the Act ). THE petitioner has stated in his petition that in response to the requisition he called a special general meeting on the 16th of May, 1959; but this meeting was not attended by any of the other members, except himself and three others, viz. , one Madan Chand and the two nominated members Mangla Ram and Parbati Devi, with the result that the no-confidence motion was lost. We are, however, not satisfied that any such meeting was actually called. On the petitioner's case itself it appears that the notice of the meeting was given on the 12th of May, 1959, and the meeting was held on, the 15th of May. This in itself shows that the notice was not in accordance with sec. 26 (3) of the Act; and there are various interpretations in the notice on account of which we are not inclined to think that any such meeting actually took place on the 15th as alleged by the petitioner. THE contention of the respondents that there was no such meeting held on the 15th appears to be well-founded and we have to proceed on the assumption that there was no such meeting held at all. We see no reason why, if any such meeting were held, the five members who had sent a written requisition to the Chairman for holding a special general meeting, would not have been present on the occasion and would not have moved the resolution of no-confidence which they intended to do. Since the Chairman himself did not take any action on the requisition sent by those members, the members themselves issued a notice on the 23rd of May, 1959, calling for such a meeting to be held at 8 A. M. on the 26th May, 1959. A special general meeting was held accordingly on the 26th which was attended by 8 of the members, who all unanimously passed a vote of no-confidence in the Chairman. A copy of the resolution was then sent to the D rector of Local Bodies as required by sec. 23 (f) of the Act. THE Director of Local Bodies in his turn then informed the Collector under his letter dated 4th June, 1959, that a vote of no-confidence had been passed against the petitioner under sec. 22 (9) (a) of the Act and requested him to direct the petitioner to hand over charge to the Vice-Chairman of the Board and to hold a fresh election of the Chairman according to Rules. THE petitioner complains that before this letter was sent the Director of Local Bodies did not give him any opportunity of being heard in the matter. We do not see how there was any occasion for the Director of Local Bodies to hear the petitioner in a matter like this when all that he had to do was to inform the Collector about the no-confidence resolution, a copy of which had been received by him. THE petitioner, however, made a representation to the Director of Local Bodies impugning the vote of no-confidence passed against him ; but the Director of Local Bodies inspite of that representation supported the action of the Vice-Chairman and requested the petitioner to hand over complete charge of the Office of the Chairman to the Vice-Chairman without any further delay. It may be stated at this stage that in spite of the motion of no-confidence the petitioner persisted in continuing to act as Chairman of the Board and, therefore, the respondents Nos. 3 to 10 to this application moved this Court for issuance of a writ restraining the present petitioner from functioning as such. Ultimately in view of the letter which the Director of Local Bodies had written to the Collector to take action for the appointment of another Chairman, the writ application was not pressed before this Court ; and it was held that the petition had become infructuous and was, therefore, dismissed.