RAJKUMAR JAISWAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was elected as Chairperson of Municipal Council, Dausa. While he was holding the post, a notice for No Confidence Motion was served on him. A meeting was thereafter held and motion was carried out against the petitioner. The participation in the meeting was only of the elected members. It is in consonance to the Rules of 2017. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding non-participation of Members of Parliament and Legislative Assembly being ex-officio members. It is by taking an erroneous interpretation of definition of "eligible member" given under Rule 2(1)(b) of the Rules of 2017. The definition aforesaid excludes only nominated members. If it excludes exofficio members then definition given under Rule 2(1)(b) of the Rules of 2017 is contrary to the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short "the Act of 2009") so as Article 243R of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, a challenge has been made to the constitutional validity of the Rules of 2017 so as the No Confidence Motion.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that once a Chairperson is elected, he can be removed save with the No Confidence Motion. It is as per amended provision of Section 53 of the Act of 2009. The earlier provision was for recall of Chairperson but was amended. The meeting of No Confidence Motion is to be held as per procedure given under the Rules of 2017. The definition of "eligible person" under Rule 2(1)(b) of the Rules of 2017 includes elected members of a Municipality but exclude the nominated members. It is silent on the ex-officio member by virtue of their office being Members of Legislative Assembly and Parliament.

(3.) The Members of Legislative Assembly and Parliament were not allowed to participate in the meeting held for No Confidence Motion and, for that reason, the meeting vitiated and, otherwise, would not have been carried out. If interpretation of Rule 2(1)(b) of the Rules of 2017 excludes ex-officio member from the definition of "eligible member" then it would be illegal being contrary to the definition of "member" given under Section 2(xxxvi) apart from definition of "whole number" or "total number" given under Section 2(Lxxiii) and Section 6 of the Act of 2009.