J.RAMAKRISHNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, petitioner challenges the No Confidence Motion dated 21.09.2020 moved by the elected Board members.

(2.) The petitioner was an elected member of respondent No.3 - Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Secunderabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board ') and the term of Office is from 2015 to 2020. As a matter of fact, by 10.02.2020, the term of Office of the elected body expired. However, by virtue of extension granted by respondent No.1 - Union of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 14 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act '), initially, the term of office of the elected body was extended by six (6) months. Thereafter, the same was extended till February, 2021. While the things stood thus, majority of the elected members submitted a requisition to the President on 21.09.2020 to call for a meeting to consider the 'no confidence motion ' against the petitioner. It was the allegation of the petitioner that such requisition was presented to the President at 2:30 p.m., and at 4:30 p.m., the President has taken a decision to convene such meeting on 22.09.2020 at 10:30 a.m. Such meeting was in fact, convened and out of 8 members, 7 members expressed no confidence with respect to the petitioner. It is the assertion of the petitioner that the motion passed against him is illogical, as such, the same is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Sri M. Rambabu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that inasmuch as the procedure governing 'no confidence motion ' has no application with respect to the extended term of Office, in particular, in terms of the first proviso to Section 14, the term of Office is extended for one year and on account of the second proviso thereof, extended term of office shall cease to hold office till the notification is issued for electing the Members. The procedure governing the removal of the members/conducting no confidence proceedings has no application to this case, as, extension of the term of Office of the elected Members is made on ad hoc basis. He also submits that as per the Regulations of the Board, with respect to the convening of the meeting for moving no-confidence motion, in 4 working days, notice be given for ordinary meetings and that in 2018, in similar circumstances, the Board had given four (4) days notice for initiating no confidence motion, whereas, in the present case, the notice is dated 21.09.2020 and the meeting was convened on 22.09.2020, thereby, there is violation of the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice. Assuming that the shorter notice could be issued by the President, the requirements itself stipulate 24 hours notice is to be given and for convening the special Board meeting, the requisition itself was given by the contesting respondents at 2:30 p.m. and the decision was taken by the President at 4:30 p.m., and as a matter of fact, the petitioner raised an objection with respect to the procedure being followed by giving a letter dated 21.09.2020, thereby, the requirement of 24 hours is not satisfied. In the circumstances, he prays for setting aside the notice issued for moving no confidence motion against the petitioner.