CHHAGAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated the 18th November, 1985, of the Revenue Appellate Authority, staying the operation of the no- confidence motion passed by the Municipal Board, Sheoganj on 19th October, 1985, against Shri Ghisulal, respondent No. 3.

(2.) THE only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that the Revenue Appellate Authority has acted without jurisdiction in interfering with the no-confidence motion passed by the Municipal Board. THE provisions of Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') do not authorise the Revenue Appellate Authority to examine the validity of a no-confidence motion passed by a Board. Section 300 reads thus:- "300. Power to call for Record.- (1) THE State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, for the purpose of being satisfied as to the correctness legality or propriety of any order passed or purporting to have been passed, under this Act, by or on behalf of any board, its, Chairman, Vice Chairman, any member or officer, or a Collector or other officer appointed by the State Government in that behalf call for the relevant record, any may in doing so, direct that, pending the examination of such record, such order shall be held in abeyance and no action in furtherance thereof shall be taken till the decision of the State Government or of the authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government under sub-section (2 ). (2) On examining the records the officer or authority authorised as aforesaid may reverse or modify such order. " As per Section 65 of the Act, on a no-confidence motion being adopted by the Board, the Chairman is deemed to have vacated his office forthwith. A perusal of the provisions of Section 300, set-out above, shows that it is only an order passed or purported to have been passed under the Act by or on behalf of any Board, its Chairman, Vice Chairman, any member, the Collector or other officer appointed by the State Government which is subject to revision by the State Government. THE principal question for consideration in this writ petition, there fore is whether a no-confidence motion passed under Sec. 65 of the Act can be treated as an order to attract the provisions of Sec 300 of the Act. THE "no-confidence motion" belongs to the category of 'motion' which is a mode to express collective view on a proposal made before a deliberative body. THE word "motion" is not synonymous with the word "order" used in Sec. 300. THE word "order" in Section 300 has been used in the sense of a direction or mandate, which emanates from a superior body meant to be obeyed as a command. Section 300, therefore, does not comprehend no-confidence motions passed by a Municipal Board THE no-confidence motion is not, therefore, subject to correction by the State Government or its delegates in exercise of the powers under Section 300 of the Act.