Kamal Kant Bharadwaj vs State of M.P.

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Proceedings having been initiated for recalling of President under Section 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short ''1961 Act'') has led the petitioner, a President, Municipal Council Chanera (New Harsud) District Khandwa, to file this petition seeking quashment of proposal sent by the Collector Khandwa in purported exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of Section 47 of 1961 Act.

The proposal emanates when 12 out of 15 elected councillors presented themselves before the Collector on 23.7.2014 with a signed proposal to recall the President.

The presentation led the Collector to seek information as to whether two years has expired from the date on which the President is elected and entered his office and that the half of the period of tenure has expired.

On receiving such report from the Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Chanera (New Harsud), the Collector has communicated the proposal on 24.7.2014 to the State Government.

The only ground on which the impugned proposal is questioned is that the Collector who is under statutory obligation to record the satisfaction as required under Section 47(2) of 1961 Act, having failed to record, vitiates the proceedings, therefore, the proposal deserves to be quashed.

Section 47 of 1961 Act which deals with the provisions regarding recalling of President is in the following terms -

"47. Recalling of President.-- (1) Every President of a Council shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if he is recalled through a secret ballot by a majority of more than half of the total number of voters of the municipal area casting the vote in accordance with the procedure as may be prescribed :

Provided that no such process of recall shall be initiated unless a proposal is signed by not less than three-fourth of the total number of the elected Councillors and presented to the Collector:

Provided further that no such process shall be initiated :-

(i) within a period of two years from the date on which such President is elected and enters his office;

(ii) If half of the period of tenure of the President elected in a by-election has not expired :

Provided also that process for recall of the President shall be initiated once in his whole term.

(2) The Collector, after satisfying himself and verifying that the three-fourth of the Councillors specified in sub-section (1) have signed the proposal of recall, shall send the proposal to the State Government and the State Government shall make a reference to the State Election Commission.

(3) On receipt of the reference, the State Election Commission shall arrange for voting on the proposal of recall in such manner as may be prescribed."

Sub-section (2) of Section 47 of 1961 Act which deals with the satisfaction which has to be arrived at by the Collector before sending the proposal of recall, has been interpreted in State of M.P. and Another Vs. Mahendra Kumar Saraf and Others, by Full Bench in the following terms -

"17. Again we have to refer to the language used in Section 47 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of this Section requires that the Collector after satisfying himself and verifying that the 3/4th of the Councillors specified in Sub-section (1) have signed the proposal of recall, shall send the proposal to the State Government. The provision nowhere mandates that the verification shall be made in the presence of signatories. Need not to say that verification of signatures of signatories after procuring their presence may be one of the modes for such verification but it is not the only or exclusively mode, because nothing can be read in the proviso itself to this effect. Therefore, to put fetters on the discretion of the Collector in selecting the mode of verification by making the personal presence of signatories mandatory while the law is framed to give him more elbow room in the matter would be clearly against the Legislative intent.

...

Therefore, we hold that proviso to Section 47 of the Act does not contemplate that the proposal should be presented by the 3/4th of the Councillors in person or that for the purpose of verification of signatures of the signatories their personal presence is necessary."

A Division Bench of this Court in Madan Lal Narvariya Vs. Smt. Satya Prakashi Parsedia and Others, also had an occasion to examine the scope of sub-section (2) of Section 47; it was held that -

"20. ...... the word ''satisfaction'' means the act of satisfying or the state of feeling being satisfied and the action of satisfaction contemplates adequate deliberation for acceptability of the conclusions. In other words, it means that before recording satisfaction, the concerned Authority must be convinced or persuaded to come to the conclusion."

In other words, satisfaction could be a state of a thing which when probed into reflects the rationality of its being and is capable of being rationally examined.

In the case at hand, the proceedings are duly recorded by Collector on 23.7.2014 and 24.7.2014.

On 23.7.2014 (erroneously mentioned as 23.7.2012), the proceedings were recorded in the following terms -

The proceedings drawn on 24.7.2014 are as under -

Apparent it is from the proceedings that 12 elected councillors had personally appeared before the Collector (though as per Full Bench, it is not necessary for the councillors to personally appear) and besides giving the proposals had also signed the order-sheet to mark their presence. The Collector thereafter to ascertain that the condition stipulated in second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 47 of 1961 Act had directed to give necessary information and on satisfying with the information and the presentation of proposal by 12 elected councillors, forwarded the proposal to State Government.

Contention that unless individual councillors are identified and such identification is recorded in the proceedings and unless expressly written that there is personal satisfaction, is asking for something which is not contemplated in the statute. In that case, since the proceedings are not drawn in camera, it is always open for the councillors whose name find mention in the proceedings to deny their presence. The proposition as propitiated is not borne out from the scheme of Section 47 of 1961 Act and if accepted would create fetters with the powers conferred on Collector by the legislature. Non-mentioning of the word ''satisfying'' will not belie the existence of facts leading to forwarding of proposal to the State Government.

There being no jurisdictional error emanating from the satisfaction that the proposal for recalling is by 3/4th of the elected councillors and two years have expired and half of the term remains, no interference is caused.

Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.