Munilingiah M. vs Town Mun Council, Kanakafura and Others

The petitioner was the President of Town Municipal Council, Kanakapura, which is functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The legality of the no-confidence resolution as a consequence of which the petitioner stood removed from the office of the President of the Town Municipal Council, is questioned by him in this writ petition.

Though various facts are stated in the writ petition the facts which are relevant for the purpose of this case are these: The petitioner was elected as President of the Town Municipal Council, Kanakapura, on 9-4-1974. On 8-11-1976, 13 Councillors out of 18 gave a notice of no-confidence to the petitioner and requested him to summon a special general meeting so as to enable them to move the resolution. According to the petitioner, the said notice was sent to him by registered post and he received it on 22-11-1976. According to him, the said resolution was moved in the meeting of the Municipal Council on 27-11-1976 and the same was rejected, but, according to the respondents the meeting specially convened for the purpose of moving a no-confidence, motion against the President was held on 13-12-1976 and on the said day the resolution expressing no-confidence against the petitioner was passed by a majority of 13 Councillors as against 5 opposing. Aggrieved by the said resolution, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

Sri G.B. Raikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, raised the following contentions:

(1) That the impugned resolution dated 13-12-1976 is illegal as there was no notice as required under Sec. 42(9) and Sec. 47(2) of the Act.

(2) That as the no-confidence resolution was negatived in a meeting of the Municipal Council on 27-11-1976, no such resolution could be moved within one year from the date of the said resolution in view of the second proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 42 of the Act.

I shall take up the second contention first Sec. 42(9) of the Act expressly provides that a resolution expressing want of confidence in the President or the Vice-President of a Municipal Council is required to be passed by a majority of not lees than 2/3 of the total number of Councillors at a special general meeting convened for the purpose. It is undisputed that the meeting held on 27-11-1976 was an ordinary general meeting. The meeting was in the first instance on 26-11-1976 and the said meeting was an ordinary general meeting as is clear from the proceedings produced along with the writ petition as Ext.''E''. The said meeting was adjourned to 27-11-1976 for want of quorum. The 13 Municipal Councillors, who had given notice of no-confidence against the petitioner declined to participate. The other Muncipal Councillors met on 27-11-1976 and according to the petitioner they passed a resolution rejecting the no-confidence resolution. As stated earlier, a no-confidence resolution could be moved only in a special meeting convened for the purpose. Therefore no such resolution could be moved in the ordinary general meeting which was held on 26-11-1976 or the adjourned meeting held on 27-11-76. Therefore there is no substance in the second contention urged for the petitioner.

Coming to the first contention, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act prescribing the procedure for moving and passing a resolution expressing want of confidence in the President or the Vice President of a Town Municipal Council. Sec. 42(9) and Sec. 47 of the Act, which are relevant, are extracted hereunder:

"42. President and Vice-President (1) to (8) * * * * *

(9) Every President and every Vice President of a Municipal Council shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated his office if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Councillors at a special general meeting convened for the purpose: Provided that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than one-third of the total number of councillors and at least ten days'' notice has been given of the intention do move the resolution:

Provided further that where a resolution expressing want of confidence in any president or vice-president has been considered and negatived by a Municipal Council, a similar resolution in respect of the same President or Vice-President shall not be given notice of or moved within one year from the date of the decision of the Municipal Council."

"47. Meeting.- (1) The municipal council shall ordinarily hold at least one meeting in every month for the transaction of business which shall be called an ordinary general meeting.

(2) The President may, whenever he thinks fit, and shall upon the written request of not less than one third of the whole number of councillors and for a date not more than fifteen days after the presentation of such request, call a special general meeting.

(3) If the President fails to call a special general meeting as provided in sub-section (2), the vice-president or one-third of the whole number of councillors may call such meeting for a day not more than thirty days after the presentation of such request and require the chief officer or the municipal commissioner to give notice to the councillors and take such action as may be necessary to convene the meeting.

(4) * * * * * "

It may be seen that sub-sec. (9) of Sec. 42 of the Act provides that a President or a Vice-President of a Municipal Council shall stand removed immediately on the passing of the resolution expressing want of confidence in him. The conditions prescribed for passing the said resolution as contained in the said provision are as follows:

(1) The resolution is required to be passed by a majority of not less less than two-thirds of total number of Councillors.

(2) Such a resolution is required to be passed at a special general meeting convened for the purpose.

(3) Minimum number of Councillors required even to move the resolution is one-third of the total number of Councillors.

(4) At least 10 days notice of intention to move the resolution should be given (5) No such resolution can be moved for a period of one year from the date on which the similar resolution against the same person has been moved and rejected.

Coming to S. 47 of the Act, the said section regulates the conduct of meetings of the Municipal Council. S. 47(1) provides that there shall be an ordinary general meeting of the Municipal Council atleast once in a month. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 47 provides that the President should call a special general meeting if not less than one-third of the whole number of Councillors make such a request and further he is required to call a special general meeting within 15 days from the date of such requisition. Sub-secs. (3) and (4) of S. 47 provide that if the President fails to call a special general meeting within 15 days from the date on which a requisition is given by not less than one-third of the whole number of Councillors the Vice-President or one-third of the whole number of Councillors may call such a meeting on a day not later than 30 days after the presentation of the request to the President and requires the Chief Officer or the Municipal Commissioner, as the case may be, to give notice of the meeting proposed to be held by them to the Councillors.

In the present case, the case of the petitioner is that there was no valid notice as required by Ss. 42(9) and 47(2) of the Act. It is not disputed that the other conditions prescribed by the aforesaid provisions which are set out earlier have been complied with.

Elaborating the first contention, Sri G.B. Raikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the notice signed by the 13 Councillors addressed to the petitioner expressing their intention to move the resolution was served on him by registered post on 22-11-1976. As it is mandatory for the Municipal Councillors intending to move a no-confidence motion against the petitioner to give atleast 10 days notice as provided under the first proviso to sub-section (9) of Sec. 42 and they are also required to call upon the President to convene a special general meeting under Sec. 47(2) of the Act and as they could themselves call a meeting only after 15 days after the expiry of the notice delivered to him calling upon him to call a special general meeting under S. 47(2) of he Act and as they could themselves call a meeting only after 15 days after the expiry of the notice delivered to him calling upon him to call a special general meeting under Sec. 47(2), the meeting held on 13-12-1976 was illegal as the requirement of two notices, one under Sec. 42(9) giving 10 days notice and another under Sec. 47(2) which gives 15 days time for the President to call the meeting has not been given. Sri S.G. Doddakalegowda, learned I Additional Govt. Advocate, appearing for respondents 1 and 4, submitted that it is not the requirement of Sec. 49(2) read with Sec. 47(2) of the Act that there should be two separate notices; the first one informing the President of the intention of the Municipal Councillors to move a no-confidence motion giving 10 days time to him and again another notice after the expiry of 10 days calling upon him to convene a special general meeting under sub-section (2) of Sec. 47 of the Act. He submitted that the one notice given in the present case satisfies the requirements of the provisions of Sec. 42(9) as well as Sec. 47(2) of the Act.

In my opinion, the contention urged for respondents 1 and 4 is well founded. All that the first proviso to sub-section (9) of S. 42 provides is that a resolution expressing the want of confidence cannot be moved unless such a resolution is signed by not less than one-third of the total number of Councillors, and at least the concerned person against whom the resolution of no-confidence is intended to be moved had atleast 10 days notice of the intention of moving the resolution. Sec. 47 of the Act is a general section which regulates all general and special meetings of the Municipal Council. As a resolution expressing want of confidence in the President or the Vice-President is required to be moved only in a special general meeting as provided under sub-section (2) of Sec. 42 of the Act, the provisions of Sec. 47 in so far it relates to the convening of a special general meeting also applies to such a meeting. The requirements for convening a special general meeting under Sec. 47(2) of the Act, as already noticed, are that the President can himself voluntarily call for a special general meeting, but he is obliged to call for a special general meeting within 15 days if a requisition for convening a special general meeting is given by not less than one-third of the whole number of Municipal Councillors. On the failure of the President to call a special general meeting within 15 days from the date of requisition, sub-section (3) of Sec. 47 confers power on the one-third of the total number of Municipal Councillors themselves to call for such a meeting and also confers power on the Vice-President to convene a special general meeting. In the present case, it is undisputed that on 8-11-1976, 13 Municipal Councillors, who admittedly constitute two-thirds of Municipal Councillors, informed the President attheir intention to move a resolution expressing want of confidence in him and also calling upon him to convene a special general meeting for the purpose. Even, according to the petitioner, the said notice was served on him on 22-11-1976. Thereafter, it is also not disputed that the President failed to call a special general meeting within 15 days from the date of service of the notice, i.e., on or before 7th December 1976. It is thereafter the Municipal Councillors. who were more than two-thirds of the total number of Municipal Councillors, themselves in exercise of their power under sub-section (3) of Sec. 47 convened the special general meeting on 13-12-1976 on which date the resolution expressing want of confidence in the President was passed. As the notice dated 8-11-1976 expressing their intention to move a no-confidence resolution was given by more than two-thirds of the total number of Councillors and the same was served on the President on 22-11-1976 and the no-confidence resolution was moved only in the meeting dated 13-12-1976, the requirements of Sec. 42(9) were fully satisfied, as that resolution was passed only after giving not less than 10 days notice to the President. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the provisions of Sec. 42(9) of the Act have been contravened. Further requirements of Sec. 47(2) and (3) are also satisfied. According to the said provisions, the Municipal Councillors who addressed their requisition to the President calling upon him to convene a special general meeting can themselves call a special general meeting only after the expiry of 15 days, if within those 15 days, the President failed to call for a special general meeting. In the present case, the notice signed by more than two-thirds of the total number of Municipal Councillors dated 8-11-1976 was admittedly served on 22-11-1976 on the petitioner calling upon him to convene a special general meeting. Therefore in view of sub-section (2) of Sec. 47 of the Act, the Municipal Councillors, who had signed the requisition could not themselves call such a meeting before 7th of December 1976. Further in view of sub-section (3) of Sec. 47. they could themselves call a special general meeting within 30 days from the date on which the notice was served on the President after the expiry of 15 days from the date of such notice. Therefore the Municipal Councillors who had called upon the President to call a special general meeting which was served on 22-11-1976, on the President, could themselves call a special general meeting only after 7th December 1976 and before 22nd December 1976. Therefore in convening the meeting on 13-12-1976 and passing a resolution expressing no-confidence in the President on 13-12-1976. the conditions prescribed both under Sec. 42(9) and Sec. 47 of the Act were fully satisfied. But the contention of the petitioner, as already stated, is that there should be two special notices; one under Sec. 42(9) giving 10 days clear notice of their intention to move a resolution expressing want of confidence and another notice under Sec. 47(2) giving him 15 days time calling upon him to convene a special general meeting. According to him, if two such notices are required to be given, the meeting held on 13-12-1976 is invalid for want of issue of two separate notices and also for the reason that the period of notice is short by 25 days taking the period prescribed under Secs. 42(9) and 47(2) put together. I see no substance in the contention of the petitioner that there should be two separate notices under Secs. 42(9) and 47(2) of the Act. A single notice, which incorporates not only the intention of the Municipal Councillors to move a resolution expressing want of confidence in the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, and also calling upon him to convene a special general meeting is perfectly legal and valid. The effect of Sec. 42(9) of the Act providing that no resolution expressing want of confidence shall be moved against the President unless he had clear 10 days notice only means that a meeting for the said purpose cannot be convened within 10 days from the date on which the requisition containing the intention to move no confidence resolution is served on the concerned person. The said condition is not violated in the present case. I receive support for the above view taken by me from a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Shukkoor v. Krishne Gowda, 1964 Mys. L.J. Supp. 808, in which interpreting Secs. 23(9) and 27(2) and (3) of the Mysore Town Municipalties Act, 1951, which are similar to the provisions of the Act under consideration, this Court held that a single notice would satisfy the requirement of both the sections. Therefore, the first contention is also liable to be rejected.

An alternative contention was raised on behalf of respondents 1 and 4 to the effect that the notice dated 8-11-1976 signed by 13 Municipal Councillors informing the President of their intention of passing a resolution expressing want of confidence in him was not only sept by registered post, but also served on him on 15-11-1976 in person. Sri Doddakalegowda produced the original records to show that on the office copy of the notice, the petitioner himself has put his initials acknowledging the receipt of the notice which also bears the office seal of the President and the Chief Officer has also recorded that the notice was served on the petitioner in person. The petitioner has however, disputed his initials and also the correctness of the endorsement made by the Chief Officer. It is unnecessary to record a finding on the said disputed question of fact for the reason that I have come to the conclusion that no two separate, notices are necessary; one under Sec. 42(9) and another under Sec. 47(2) of the Act, and also I have come to the conclusion that a meeting held after 10 days from the date on which a notice in writing signed by the Municipal Councillors informing the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, of their intention to move a resolution expressing want of confidence, constitutes a valid meeting and it satisfies the requirements of Sec. 42(9) of the Act.

For the reasons stated above, I reject both the contentions urged for the petitioner. The rule is discharged and the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 250/- one set.