Beni Prasad Rathore vs State of M.P.

M.V. Taraaskar, J.

The petitioners are elected councilors of the Municipal Council, Sehore. They were elected President and Vice-President on 20.12:1994. The composition of Municipal Councils is provided u/s 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Apart from the elected councilors four persons in case of Municipal Councils having special knowledge or experience of the Municipal Administration are to be nominated by the State, residing within the Municipal area.

One Shri Maheshwari, Chief Municipal Officer, proceeded on leave on 23.1.1995 handing over charge to a Revenue Officer.

A requisition was given by the councilors to call a meeting on 27.1.1995 to consider the vote of no confidence against the petitioners who are President and Vice-President, The Revenue Inspector who had taken over charge from the Chief Municipal Officer accepted the requisition and summoned the meeting to be held on 14.2.1995 at 12 P. M. in the Municipal Council, Sehore.

The Municipal Council, Sehore, has elected members. The four members are nominated by the State u/s 19 (b) have not yet been nominated. Members of Parliament and Legislative Assembly become the members proforma / ex-officio and no notification is required to be published.

The Revenue Officer, Incharge, issued notice of the meeting to the elected councilors as well as one of the members of the Legislative Assembly from the area. No separate notices were issued to the Member of the Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly from lchhawar constituency which comes within the Municipal limits. The meeting was held as notified on 14.2.1995 and the no confidence motion was passed. The resolution was carried out.

This resolution is being challenged before this Court on the grounds that the no confidence motion cannot be moved unless the Municipal Council was properly constituted u/s 19 of the Act; that no notice of no confidence motion meeting was issued in the manner provided u/s 47/2) of the Act. i. e. to say the Chief Municipal Officer alone could issue the notice of the meeting and no other person either officiating or acting on his behalf can issue the same and that no notices ought to have been issued to all the members whether elected or nominated or ex-officio and in the absence of notice to these members the whole meeting is vitiated.

Learned Counsel for the respondents / state submits that u/s 19 of the Act if the C. M. 0. is on leave for a period not exceeding 30 days at a time, the State may make such local arrangement for carrying out the duties as may be necessary. In the instant case, the Dy. Director, Urban Administration, issued Annexure P/4-R/1. This letter states that in the absence of Shri S.C. Maheshwari, C. M. O., the senior most officer in the Municipal Council shall perform his duties. This letter does not nominate any person.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the Municipal Council there are number of officers and there are officers in the State Municipal Service such as Health Officer and Engineer who are senior to whom charge could be given as per the delegation issued by the Director Urban Administration.

Section 47 (2) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, reads as under :-

2(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1) a meeting of Council shall be held in the following manner, namely, (i) the meeting shall be convened by the Chief Municipal Officer on a requisition signed by not less than one sixth of the total number of elected councilors constituting the council for the time being: (ii) the notice of such a meeting specifying the time and place thereof shall be dispatched by the Chief Municipal Officer to every councilors ten days clear before the meeting : (iii) the President or Vice-President, as the case may be against whom the motion of no-confidence is moved, shall not prescribe over the meeting, (iv) A copy of the notice shall be sent to the prescribed authority.'''' The words used in this section are ''Chief Municipal Officer.'' It does not speak about any person authorised or functioning as a Chief Municipal Officer.'' Merely because the some officer has been delegated powers to perform day to day routine, he does not become an officer for the purpose of section 47 which speaks only about the Chief Municipal Officer. In election law the duty is to be performed only in the manner prescribed and not otherwise. In Tej Lal v. Nandkishore and Others 1966 M.P.L.J. 1014 it has held thus:

The provisions of section 47 (2) of the M. P. Municipalities Act are mandatory and not directory. The meeting for consideration of a no confidence motion must he convened by the Chief Municipal Officer.

In the instant case, the meeting was not convened by the Chief Municipal Officer and thereby the no-confidence motion passed in the meeting held on 14.2.1995 cannot be said to have been passed in a meeting validly convened. The case reported to Tej Lal v. Nandkishore and Others 1966 M.P.L.J. 1014 refers the number of Supreme court cases and other cases for the proposition that the meeting not having been validly called, the no-confidence resolution passed therein was ineffective. That being the clear position of law, the meeting called by the Revenue Officer/Inspector in the instant case cannot be said to be a needing validly convened.

Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents states that the Revenue Officer/Inspector should be held to be In-charge C. M. O. u/s 19 of the Act. However, the authorisation issued by the Deputy Director, Urban Administration, is beautifully vague. In the letter it has been only stated that the charge should be given to the senior most officer of the Municipal Council. The revenue Inspector is not obviously a senior most officer there being many officers performing their duties. The submission of the learned counsel for the State could have been corrected had the Dy. Director issued specific orders for taking over the charge to the Revenue Inspector/ Officer. In the absence of any such order he has no authority to act and perform the duty which is a specific duty caste on a specific officer to be carried out in a specific manner. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The resolution dated 14.2.1995 (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed. The petitioners shall be deemed to be continuing as President and Vice-President.

Shri Shukla submits that in view of the amendment that the elected councilors alone can vote for carrying out the resolution, and merely because notices have not been issued to the other members nominated or co-opted or ex-officio, the meeting, is not vitiated. Since, the petition is allowed on the first submission alone, this matter is left open to be considered in appropriate case. The petition is allowed but there shall be no order as to costs.