AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson respectively and petitioners No. 3 and 4 are the Councillors of the of the Mormugao Municipal Council. They have challenged the legality and propriety of the special meeting convened by respondent No. 2- Director of Urban Development held on 23.6.08. In the said meeting, resolution that petitioners No. 1 and 2 be removed from the Office has been passed u/s 56(3) of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968. The petitioners have challenged the resolution mainly on the ground that the meeting was not convened by respondent No. 2, the Director of Urban Development within 10 days of receiving a representation for requisitioning a special meeting u/s 56 of the Municipalities Act and is, therefore, illegal. According to the petitioners, the requirement to convene a meeting is the requirement to hold a meeting and not merely call it. Thus, what falls for consideration is the meaning of the word "convene" as used in Section 56 of the Municipalities Act. Section 56 reads as follows :
REMOVAL OF [CHAIRPERSON] AND [VICE-CHAIRPERSON]
(1) a [Chairperson] or a [Vice-Chairperson] shall cease to be [Chairperson] or [Vice-Chairperson], as the case may be, if the Council by a resolution passed by a majority of the total number of Councillors [....] at a special meeting so decides.
(2) The requisition for such special meeting shall be signed by not less than [one third] of the total number of Councillors [....] and shall, if such meeting is to be convened for considering the resolution for removal from office-
(a) of the [Chairperson] or of the [Chairperson] as well as the [Vice- Chairperson], be sent to the [Director];
(b) of the [Vice-Chairperson] be sent to the [Chairperson].
(3) The Director or, as the case may be, the [Chairperson] shall within ten days of the receipt of a requisition under sub-section (2) convene a special meeting of the Council :
Provided that, when the Director convenes a special meeting of the Council, he shall give intimation thereof to the [Chairperson].
(4) A meeting to consider a resolution under sub-section (1) shall be presided over -
(a) by the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf, when a resolution for the removal of the [Chairperson] or of the [Chairperson] and [Vice-Chairperson] is under consideration, but he shall have no right to vote;
(b) by the [Chairperson], when a resolution for the removal of the [Vice-Chairperson] is under consideration.
The requisite number of Councillors submitted a representation for requisitioning a special meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence against the petitioners to the Director of Urban Development. The Director received it on 10/6/08. According to the petitioners, the Director was bound to hold a special meeting for considering the requisition within 10 days of the receipt of the requisition i.e. on 10/6/08. Admittedly, the Director called for the meeting within 10 days. The Director initially issued a notice, calling for the meeting on 27.6.08. Thereafter, he preponed the said meeting to 23.6.08. In any case, the meeting has been held on 23.6.08 i.e. beyond the period of 10 days of the receipt of requisition. The only question, therefore, is whether sub-section (3) of Section 56 requires the Director to call a special meeting or hold a special meeting of the Council within 10 days of the receipt of the requisition.
According to Mr. Tamba, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the word ''convene'' used in sub-section (3) of Section 56 means holding or the actual assembling of the Councillors within 10 days and, therefore, the meeting, in question, is illegal, having been held beyond 10 days, though notice calling for the meeting was given within 10 days.
The learned Advocate General, opposing the petition, submitted that the word ''convene'' in the context means calling for or summoning the meeting and not the actual holding of the meeting. According to the respondents, it is sufficient compliance if the notice calling for the meeting is issued within 10 days of the receipt of requisition and the meeting is held within a reasonable time thereafter. The respondents relied on a Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Ashok Maniklal Harkut Vs. The Collector of Amravati and Another, . The Full Bench of this Court construed a provision in pari materia with Section 56(3) of the Goa Act. The Full Bench observed as follows :
...It is no doubt true that the object of the Legislature in specifying time limit within which the meeting has to be convened, is that the motion of no confidence should be treated as a mater of urgency and should be disposed of within a short time after receipt of the requisition. If it is held that what is required is only an issuance of notice calling a meeting within 10 days, then in a given case, by issuing a notice summoning a meeting within 10 days, but actually fixing a date of meeting much later, a person in whom majority of two-thirds of total number of Councillors have lost confidence, may continue in office. However, it cannot be forgotten that if it is held that the said time limit is mandatory and the meeting held thereafter is ab initio void it will result in unforeseen hardship and inconvenience. Requisitionists have no control over the Collector. It has not been laid down in the Act as to what will happen if the Collector fails to carry on the duty imposed upon him by Sub-Sec. (3) of S.55. Will it mean that by mere inaction or negligence on the part of the Collector the requisition will lapse and that too for no fault of Requisitionists ? Therefore, the said provisions will have to be construed as to further its object and not to defeat it.
From S.23(1) it is clear that the Legislature has consciously used the expression, convene and held, to convey different meanings. Under S.81(1A) it is provided that if the President fails to call an ordinary meeting within the period specified in Cl.(1), the Chief Officer shall forthwith report such failure to the Collector, and the Collector shall within seven days from the receipt of Chief Officer''s report or may suo motu, call the ordinary meeting. Under Sub-Sec.(4) of S.81 seven clear days notice is necessary for an ordinary meeting. Therefore, the expression, ''shall call an ordinary meeting'' can only mean issue notice for calling an ordinary meeting. Whenever Legislature wanted that the meeting itself should be held within a particular time it has used different expressions. In Sub-Sec.(2) of S.81, the expression used is ''on a date not later than fifteen days after the receipt of such request, call a special meeting''. Similar expression is used in S.82(2). In S.81(3) expression used is different, that is, ''on a date within 15 days from the date of receipt of such request''. In S.55(3) such an expression is not used. S.49(3) of Zilla Parishads Act lays down that the Collector shall, within seven days from the date of receipt of the requisition under Sub-Sec.(2), convene a special meeting of Zilla Parishad. It is further provided that the meeting shall be held on a date not later than thirty days from the date of issue of the notice of meeting. Similar provision is made in 72(3) of the same Act. If the phraseology used in S.55(3) is read in this context it can only mean that the notice convening the special meeting should be issued within ten days, though the meeting could be and normally should be held within the said period or within a reasonable period, at a later date.
We are satisfied that the statutory scheme in the Goa Act is no different and is in pari materia with the scheme of the Maharashtra Act. Therefore, the word ''convene'' in Section 56(3) of the Goa Act will have to be given the same meaning as in the Maharashtra Act. We, accordingly, find that the meeting under challenge was properly convened by the Director of Urban Development within 10 days of the receipt of requisition and held beyond the said period, within a reasonable time.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to the decisions of this Court in Mandabai Balnath Rohom and Others Vs. Ashok Fakira Chandar and Others, and in Ganesh Raghunath Samel Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, in which it was held that under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act a meeting for No Confidence Motion must be held within 7 days of the receipt of the motion for no confidence. Those Judgments are under the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. The decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Ashok Maniklal Harkut (supra) which considered all the decided cases on the point, has not been pointed out to the Benches which decided that case. We have, therefore, not referred to those decisions. There is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed.