Neelam Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The petitioner has preferred this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly quash the proceedings initiated by the Collector on the application made by the Private Respondent on 09/01/2024 for No Confidence Motion against the petitioner.

10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other order or orders, writ or writs, direction or directions as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in favor of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has orally challenged a notice dated 15.02.2024 issued by the Collector-Cum-Prescribed Authority, District Korba specifying the date, time and place to convene the meeting of no-confidence motion.

Heard on admission and an application for the grant of interim relief.

The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was elected as Councilor and later on, she was elected to the post of President of Nagar Panchayat, Chhurikala, District Korba on 06.01.2020. In the Nagar Panchayat, Chhurikala, there are a total of 15 Councilors and 01 President. Earlier a requisition notice was moved to bring a meeting of no-confidence motion against the petitioner on 01.08.2022 by 03 Councilors. Out of 03 Councilors, Heera Lal Yadav was removed according to the provisions of Section 41(1)(a) of the CG. Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short 'Act, 1961’) vide order dated 19.12.2022, therefore, the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 22.12.2022 rejected the motion of no-confidence.

Councilor Heera Lal challenged the order of removal before the State Government and thereafter he filed WPC No. 1840/2023, which is still pending before this Court.

On 11.12.2023, 09 out of 15 Councilors moved a requisition notice before the Collector-Cum-Prescribed Authority to bring a no-confidence motion against the petitioner. The copy of the requisition was received by the office of the Collector, Korba but no action was taken on said requisition notice. On 09.01.2024, another requisition notice was moved to bring a no-confidence motion against the petitioner making various allegations. On 09.01.2024, the Collector took cognizance and directed the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Chhurikala to submit a report according to provisions of Section 43-A (1) of the Act, 1961. The instant petition was filed by the petitioner challenging therein the cognizance taken by the Collector-Cum-Prescribed Authority dated 09.01.2024. Thereafter, on 15.02.2024, the Prescribed Authority specified the date of the no-confidence motion i.e. 28.02.2024 at 12 PM and also specified the place of the meeting i.e. the office of Chief Municipal Officer, Chhurikala, District Korba. The notices were issued to the Councilors and President on 15.02.2024. The petitioner has challenged the entire proceedings of the no-confidence motion initiated against her by the Collector-Cum-Prescribed Authority.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the matter of one Councilor namely, Heera Lal Yadav who was removed from the office of Councilor is still pending before this Court, therefore, the Prescribed Authority ought not to have initiated proceedings for a no-confidence motion against the petitioner. He would further submit that on 11.12.2023, a requisition notice was moved by 09 Councilors to bring the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. Though the mark of receipt of office of the Collector is present, no cognizance was taken and thereafter contrary to the provisions of Section 43-A of the Act 1961, another requisition notice was moved by 06 Councilors to bring a no-confidence motion against the petitioner. He would further contend that when the first requisition notice was moved on 11.12.2023 to bring a no-confidence motion against the petitioner within one year of rejection of the previous motion of no-confidence, the subsequent application was not maintainable and the Collector-Cum-Prescribed Authority committed an error of law in taking cognizance and initiating proceedings. He would also contend that the notice whereby the Prescribed Authority has specified the date, time and place of the no-confidence motion is also illegal. He would argue that according to the proviso to Section 43-A(1) of the Act 1961, no such resolution will lie against the President or Vice President within a period of one year from the date on which the previous motion of no-confidence was rejected. He would also submit that the requisition notice moved on 11.12.2023 is still pending consideration; therefore, the second application was not maintainable at all.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that the cognizance was taken by the Collector-Cum-Prescribed Authority on requisition notice moved on 11.12.2023. They would further submit that the Collector-Cum-Prescribed Authority has complied with the entire provisions of Section 43-A of the Act 1961. They would also submit that the notice to bring a no-confidence motion was brought by 06 Councilors and the figure is more than one-sixth, thus, the requirement of Section 43-A(2)(i) of the Act 1961 has been complied with. They would further contend that the Chief Municipal Officer has verified the signatures of the Councilors and the no-confidence motion has not been brought within one year from the date of rejection of the previous motion of no-confidence. They would argue that the notice specifying the date, time and place has been dispatched to the petitioner and other Councilors and 10 clear days have been provided before the meeting, thus, the authority has not committed any irregularity or illegality.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the documents placed on record.

Section 43-A of the Act, 1961 reads as under:-

“43-A. No confidence motion against Vice-President.–

(1) A Motion of no confidence may be moved against the Vice-President by any elected Councillor at a meeting specially convened for the purpose under sub-section (2) and if the motion, is carried by a majority of two thirds of the elected Councilors present and voting in the meeting and if such majority is more than half of the total number of elected Councillors constituting the Council, the office of the Vice-President, shall be deemed to have become vacant forthwith. A copy of such motion shall be sent by the Chief Municipal Officer to the Collector forthwith for filling up the vacancy :

Provided that no such resolution shall lie against the Vice-President within a period of–

(i) two years from the date on which the Vice-President enters upon his office;

(ii) one year from the date on which the previous motion of no-confidence was rejected.

(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), a meeting of the Council shall be convened and presided over by the Collector or a Class I Officer in case of a Municipal Council and a Class II Officer in case of Nagar Panchayat as nominated by him, in the following manner, namely :–

(i) the meeting shall be convened forthwith on a requisition signed by not less than one-sixth of the total number of elected Councillors constituting the Council for the time being;

(ii) the notice of such a meeting specifying the date, time and place shall be despatched to the President and every Councillor ten clear days before the meeting;

(iii) the no-confidence motion moved under this section shall be decided through secret ballot.”

The first and foremost requirement to move the motion of no-confidence against the President or Vice-President is that the requisition notice must be signed by not less than one-sixth of the total number of the elected Councilors. In the present case, out of 15 Councilors, 06 Councilors have signed the requisition notice and thus, the requirement as engrafted under Section 43-A(2)(i) of the Act 1961 has been complied with.

Earlier no-confidence motion was brought against the petitioner on 01.08.2022 and it was rejected on 22.12.2022. At present, the requisition notice to bring a no-confidence motion has been moved after the expiry of one year on 09.01.2024; therefore, it is not within one year from the date of rejection of the previous no-confidence motion.

Concerning the pendency of WPC No. 1840/2023 filed by Heera Lal, a Councilor, in the opinion of this Court pendency of the writ petition would not affect the case of the petitioner because according to provisions of Section 43A of the Act, 1961 motion of no-confidence has to be passed by 2/3rd majority of elected Councilors present and voting in the meeting, therefore the argument raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted.

One important submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 11.12.2023, a requisition was moved before the Collector-Cum-Prescribed Authority to bring a no-confidence motion and it was signed by 09 Councilors and the requisition was received by the office of the Collector, but no cognizance was taken and thereafter another requisition notice was moved on 09.01.2024 and on the very date, the Collector took cognizance and directed the Chief Municipal Officer to submit a report according to the provisions of Section 43-A of the Act 1961.

The Legislature has laid down a complete scheme for a no-confidence motion and in the proviso to Section 43-A(i) of the Act 1961, it is envisaged that resolution of a no-confidence motion shall not lie against the President or Vice-President within a period of two years from the date on which they enter their office and within one year from the date on which the previous motion of no-confidence was rejected. From a bare reading of the language employed under proviso to Section 43-A(1) of the Act 1961, it is quite vivid that the Legislature has closed the door to bring a no-confidence motion after the rejection of the previous motion of no-confidence within one year. It is nowhere stated that the application cannot be moved within a period of one year. Some persons may move frivolous applications to bring a no-confidence motion against any of the office bearers to avoid a no-confidence motion and to check this situation the Legislature has put certain contingencies. The purpose of calling a report from the Chief Municipal Officer is to verify the authenticity of the requisition notice of no-confidence motion. Though the mark of receipt is present on the requisition notice dated 11.12.2023, whether it was moved by the Councilors or not, is not clear and whether it was actually moved before the appropriate authority, is also not clear and it may be a reason as to why no action was taken on the requisition notice dated 11.12.2023. If the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, it can be misused by anyone either in favour of the office bearers or against them. There may be more than one requisition notice to bring a no-confidence motion, but the Collector/Prescribed Authority has to apply its mind and after the due scrutiny, he has to take a decision and the same has been done in the present case.

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the provisions of Section 43-A of the Act 1961, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference.

Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Accordingly pending IA for ad interim relief also stands disposed of.