GANGA DUTT Vs. BHAGWANDAS TAPARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ application by Ganga Dutt under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India The petitioner is Vice-Chairman of the Municipal Board at Nokha, which consists of 10 members. Non-petitioner No. 1, Bhagwan Das Taparia, is the Chairman of the said Municipal Board.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that a special meeting of the Nokha Municipal Board was held on 1. 6. 57 and a resolution expressing want of confidence in the chairman, namely non-petitioner No. 1, was passed by a majority of six members. Within two months of the said resolution, another special meeting of the Board was held on 23-8 57 and this time also, another motion of no-confidence in non-petitioner No. 1 was passed by 5 members. Both these resolution having been passed under sec. 22 (9) of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act No. 23 of 1951 (which will hereafter be referred as the Act) non-petitioner No. 1 should be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith, but in actual fact he did not vacate his office and was still working as Chairman. It has been prayed that there being no alternative, adequate or efficacious remedy, a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order should be issued against the Chairman. It should be declared that he has ceased to be Chairman of the Board from 23. 8. 57, when the second no-confidence motion was passed against him, and that he should be restrained from working as Chairman of the Municipal Board at Nokha.

(3.) BEFORE parting with the case, we may also point out that one special general meeting for considering a resolution of no-confidence in non-petitioner No. 1 was held by the petitioner and some other members on 1. 7. 57. But it was illegal since it was convened within less than two months from the earlier meeting held on 11. 6. 57. The petitioner concealed the fact of this meeting and also the meeting held on 22. 8. 57, though he was present on that day. In Kabool Chand vs. Deputy Custodian, Alwar (l) it was held by this Court that "a party who comes to the Court and asks its to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India should place full and true facts before it and should not word the application or affidavit in such a way as to create a completely misleading picture of the facts leading to the making of the application in order to deceive the Court in passing interim orders in his favour. Where the Court has reason to be satisfied that there has been a deliberate concealment of material facts so as to obtain an interim order by deceiving it, the Court will decline to consider the merits and reject the applications. " In the present case, the petitioner was able to get interim orders by deliberately concealing the fact of the meeting of 22. 3. 57. He also concealed the fact of the meeting held on 1-7 57, and under these circumstances this application was fit to be dismissed even without hearing the petitioner on merits. The petitioner has contended that he did not see any importance in the meeting of 1. 7. 57 and so it was not mentioned. He has, however, given no reason why he concealed the meeting of 22. 8. 57 and if it were not concealed, he would not have been able to obtain the interim order. His application was thus fit to be dismissed summarily. Still, we have looked into the merits and we find that the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that the meetings of i 1-6 57 and 23. 8. 57 were held in accordance with law.