Parkash Singh vs State of Punjab

G.S. Singhvi, J.

In the elections held on 12.1.1998, the petitioners and respondent No. 3 were elected as Municipal Councillors from various wards of Municipal Council, Gobindgarh (respondent No. 2). Respondent No. 3 was elected as President of respondent No. 2 on 14.6.1998. A motion of no confidence moved against respondent No. 3 in November, 1998 was defeated because requisite number of members did not support it. After about six months, the petitioner submitted requisition dated 6.4.1999 for convening a meeting for consideration of no confidence motion against the respondent No. 3. Vide his letter dated 16.4.1999, respondent No. 3 informed the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib that in view of the bar contained in byelaw No. 27 of the ByeLaws framed under Section 31 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') meeting for consideration of no confidence motion cannot be convened before the lapse of 6 months of the rejection of previous no confidence motion. This plea of respondent No. 3 was turned down by the government vide memo No. 7/17/94LGIII/4767 dated 19.4.1999 (Annexure R.3/1) and he was directed to take action in accordance with Section 25 of the Act. In compliance of the government''s direction, respondent No. 3 passed an order on 19.4.1999 for holding the meeting on 3.5.1999 at 3.00 p.m. in the office of respondent No. 2. Accordingly, notices were sent to the members informing them about the date, time and place of the meeting.

There is no dispute between the parties about the above mentioned factual matrix of the case, but there is substantial controversy between them on the events which took place on 3.5.1999. According to the petitioners, they attended the meeting on 3.5.1999 and passed a resolution expressing no confidence in respondent No. 3, but as he refused to give the proceedings book, they recorded the factum of passing of no confidence motion on a separate sheet and communicated the same to the Executive Officer of respondent No. 2 on the same day. As against this, version of respondent No. 3 is that even before the members of the Municipal Council could take their seats in the Municipal hall for the purpose of meeting, 15 to 20 persons unauthorisedly entered the hall and started raising slogans and pushing the members of the Municipal Council. This compelled the authorities to summon the police. However, as the situation was going out of control and there was danger to the security and safety of the members including women, he postponed the meeting for 6.5.1999 at 3.00 p.m. and this was duly recorded in the proceeding book. In support of this assertion, copy of the letter dated 3.5.1999 written by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amloh to the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib has been placed on record as Annexure R.3/2.

The events which took place after 3.5.1999 may now be noticed. Fourteen out of the fifteen members, who signed the resolution passed for expressing no confidence against respondent No. 3, wrote letter dated 4.5.1999 to the Principal Secretary, Local Government, Punjab for taking action in the matter. A photostat copy of the resolution passed by them was annexed with that letter. One of the signatories of the resolution, namely, Shri Gursharan Singh wrote letter dated nil to the Principal Secretary, Local Government, Punjab, which was received in the latter''s office on 6.5.1999, stating therein that the meeting had been postponed by the President to be held on 6.5.1999 and he had been made to sign on some papers along with five other members for sending an intimation to the Director, Local Bodies about the postponement of the meeting. After considering these documents, show cause notice No. 8/52/92 L.G.(3)/6105 dated 19.5.1999 was issued by the Principal Secretary, Local Government Department, Punjab to respondent No. 3 for his proposed removal under Section 22 of the Act. However, on that very day, the District Attorney appears to have given an opinion in writing that the show cause notice may be withdrawn.

In the light of these facts, of which we have taken cognizance from the pleadings of the parties and the file produced by the learned Deputy Advocate General, it is to be decided whether respondent No. 3 should be deemed to have been suspended under Section 22 of the Act.

The submission of Shri Surya Kant, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the socalled action taken by respondent No. 3 to postpone the meeting held on 3.5.1999 should be treated as nullity and ignored and the resolution passed by 2/3rd majority of the members of respondent No. 2 should be given full effect to. He argued that the refusal of respondent No. 3 to hand over the proceeding book constituted a valid ground for the petitioners to record proceedings on a separate sheet. He further argued that the decision of the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Local Government Department, to issue show cause notice to respondent No. 3 is clearly indicative of the government''s acceptance of the fact that ''no confidence motion'' was validily passed by majority of the Municipal Councillors in the meeting held on 3.5.1999. He submitted that respondent No. 1 is deliberately delaying action due to political interference as respondent No. 3 belongs to ruling Akali DalB.J.P. combine. The learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the matter is still under consideration of the government as the facts relating to incident of 3.5.1999 are still being verified from the Regional Deputy Director, Local Government Department. He further submitted that action will be taken on receipt of the detailed report. Shri S.C. Pathela, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 conceded that the President of the Municipal Council will be deemed to have been suspended if a resolution of no confidence is validly passed by 2/3rd members. But, at the same time he submitted that in this case the resolution signed by 15 members cannot be treated to have been passed because the meeting, which was scheduled to be held on 3.5.1999, was postponed by respondent No. 3. Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 argued that the resolution passed by the petitioners does not have the legal sanctity because the meeting held on 3.5.1999 was postponed by respondent No. 3 due to disturbances created by unauthorised persons who has entered the Municipal hall. He relied on the byelaws framed by respondent No. 2 under Section 31 of the Act and argued that in view of the adjournment of the meeting by respondent No. 3, the resolution passed by the petitioners must be treated as void and the notice allegedly issued by respondent No. 1 for taking action under Section 22 of the Act deserves to be ignored. He submitted that recording of proceedings in any book or register or paper other than the one maintained by the Executive Officer cannot be treated as legal and no action can be taken on the basis of such recording.

We have thoughtfully considered the submissions of the learned counsel. Sections 22 and 25 of the Act and byelaws 7, 15 and 72(1), (2), (3), (4) and (7) of the byelaws framed by respondent No. 2 (published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 29.5.1959) read as under :

"Sections 22 and 25 of the Act.

Resignation or removal of president and vicepresident : Whenever a president or vicepresident vacates his seat or tenders in writing to the committee his resignation of his office, he shall vacate his office; and any president or vicepresident may be removed from office by the (State) Government on the ground of abuse of his powers of habitual failure to perform his duties or in pursuance of a resolution, requesting his removal passed by twothirds of the members of the committee.

(Provided that if a resolution requesting the removal of the President or the VicePresident is passed by two third of the members of the committee the President or, as the case may be, the Vice President shall be deemed to be under suspension immediately after such resolution is passed) :

Provided further that before the State Government notifies his removal, the reason for his proposed removal shall be communicated to him by means of a registered letter in which he shall be (called upon) to tender within twenty one days an explanation in writing and if no such explanation is received in the office of the (appropriate Secretary to Government) within twentyone days of the despatch of the said registered letter, the (State) Government may proceed to notify his removal.

xx xx xx

Times of holding meetings. (1) Every committee shall meet for the transaction of business at least once in every month at such time as may, from time to time, be fixed by the byelaws.

(2) The President or, in the absence or during the vacancy of his office or during his suspension under Section 22, a VicePresident may, whenever he thinks fit and shall on a requisition (specifying the purpose of the meeting made in writing) by not less than onefifth of the members of the committee, convene either an ordinary or a special meeting at any other time.

(3) If the president or the vicepresident, as the case may be, fails to call a meeting of the committee within a period of fourteen days from the date of receipt of requisition, the members who had signed the requisition may convene a meeting of the committee in accordance with the byelaws of the committee within a period of thirty days of the making of such requisition and notwithstanding anything contained in this Act such meeting shall be deemed to be a validly convened meeting :

Provided that no business other than that specified in the requisition shall be transacted in such meeting and the quotum for such a meeting shall be as provided for a special meeting under subsection (1) of Section 27."

"Byelaws 7, 15 and 71(1), (2), (3), (4) and (7).

Every meeting shall commence with a motion by the Chairman that the minutes of the previous meeting be confirmed. Such minutes shall ordinarily be taken as read, but if for any reason, they have not been previously circulated to the members, they shall be read before they are taken into consideration. Any member, who was present at the previous meeting, may object to the confirmation of the minutes by moving an amendment on the grounds that any matter is not correctly recorded or expressed.

If the members refuse to obey the ruling of the Chairman on any matter, he may adjourn it at once and once he declares the meeting adjourned on this or any other ground, the subsequent proceedings of the meeting or any residue thereof shall be void and shall not appear in the minutes.

(1) The Secretary shall be the executive officer of the committee and discharge his duties subject to the control of the Municipal Committee and the immediate orders of the President or in his absence of the VicePresident.

(2) The whole of the Municipal Establishment shall be under his direct control subject to the orders of the Municipal Committee and the President.

(3) He shall be responsible for the conduct of the official correspondence with all departments under the control of the President or the VicePresident.

(4) He shall be responsible that all orders and resolutions of the Committee are duly carried out and shall sign notices, processes, sanctions and permits issued on behalf of the Committee.

xx xx xx

(7) He shall be responsible for the entire work and proper upkeep of registers and record of the office and for the punctual submission of accounts and returns."

An analysis of these provisions shows that one of the situations in which a President or Vice President can be asked to vacate his office is when a resolution requesting his removal is passed by 2/3rd of the members of the Committee. First proviso to Section 22, which incorporates a deeming provision, lays down that if a resolution requesting the removal of the President or the Vice President is passed by 2/3rd of the members of the Committee, the President etc. shall be deemed to be under suspension immediately after the passing of such resolution. However, before the removal of the President or the Vice President is notified, the State Government is required to give notice of the proposed removal and consider the representation, if any, tendered in response to such notice. Section 25(2) confers discretion upon the President or the Vice President to convene ordinary or a special meeting. It also imposes an obligation upon him to call such meeting on a requisition by not less than 1/5th of the members of the Committee. Subsection (3) provides for a contingency in which the President or the Vice President fails to call a meeting within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of requisition. In such situation, the signatories of the requisition can convene meeting in accordance with the byelaws of the Committee within a period of 30 days and such meeting is deemed to be a validly convened meeting for the purpose of transacting the business specified in the requisition. Clauses 7 and 15 of the byelaws framed under Section 31 of the Act empower the Chairman to conduct the proceedings of the meeting of the Committee and also to adjourn the meeting if the members refuse to obey his ruling. Clause 72 of the byelaws declares that the Secretary shall be the Executive Officer of the Committee and he is responsible for upkeep of registers and record of the office.

7A. From what we have said herein above, it is clear that the Act and the byelaws do not contain any provision to deal with a situation in which the President or the Vice President may adjourn the meeting of no confidence without any reasonable cause and thereby frustrate the motion of no confidence. Similarly, there is no provision to deal with a situation in which the Secretary/Executive Officer may decline to give the register and proceeding book to the members for the purpose of recording the minutes of the meeting.

In the background of this discussion, we have to decide the following issues :

(i) Whether the socalled adjournment of the meeting convened for consideration of motion of no confidence was factually justified and legally correct?

(ii) Whether the resolution Annexure P.3 dated 3.5.1999 was validly passed and, therefore, respondent No. 3 will be deemed to have been suspended in accordance with the first proviso to Section 22 of the Act ?

For the purpose of deciding the above mentioned issues, we may recapitulate the following salient features of the case :

(i) fifteen Municipal Councillors had submitted requisition dated 6.4.1999 expressing their no confidence in respondent No. 2;

(ii) vide letter dated 16.4.1999, respondent No. 3 requested the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib to reject the requisition in view of byelaw 27;

(iii) on a reference made by the Deputy Commissioner, the government rejected the assertion of respondent No. 3 that the requisition was invalid and directed him to convene the meeting in accordance with Section 25 of the Act;

(iv) in compliance of the government''s direction, respondent No. 3 ordered that the meeting of the Municipality will be held on 3.5.1999 at 3.00 p.m. in the Municipal Hall for considering of the requisition;

(v) in pursuance of the notice issued by the Executive Officer for the meeting of the Municipality, the petitioners and respondent No. 3 assembled in the Municipal hall on 3.5.1999 at the appointed time;

(vi) respondent No. 3 is said to have postponed the meeting to 6.5.1999 due to the alleged disturbance and the petitioners, who constituted 2/3rd majority are said to have passed the resolution expressing on confidence in respondent No. 3;

(vii) in the proceeding book maintained by the Executive Officer, respondent No. 3 recorded that the meeting has been adjourned;

(viii) the petitioners recorded the factum of passing of ''no confidence motion'' on a separate sheet of paper and forwarded the same to the government for removal of respondent No. 3; and

(ix) the Principal Secretary to the Government issued notice dated 19.5.1999 proposing removal of respondent No. 3 under Section 22 of the Act. However, delivery of the notice was withheld in view of the note recorded by the District Attorney.

It is, thus, clear that there is no dispute between the parties on the factum of submission of requisition by the petitioners, the passing of resolution of ''no confidence'' and submission thereof to the State Government under the signatures of 14 out of the 15 members who had signed the requisition. However, there is a sharp difference between the parties on the issue of validity of the resolution passed by the petitioners on 3.5.1999. The case set up by respondent No. 3 is that he had adjourned the meeting and all actions taken thereafter should be regarded as void. As against this, the petitioners have asserted that the resolution passed by 2/3rd members of the Municipal Committee is legal and the official respondents are bound to take action in accordance with the will of the majority. A careful scrutiny of the pleadings bring to the fore the following versions of the meeting held on 3.5.1999 :

(i) according to the petitioners, they had assembled in the Municipal hall and passed resolution of no confidence but the proceedings book was not handed over leaving them with no option but to record the resolution on separate sheet of paper and further that respondent No. 3 had unauthorisedly directed the recording of proceedings showing adjournment of the meeting;

(ii) in paragraphs 6 and 9 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, the Executive Officer has averred that the President had postponed the meeting at 3.15 p.m. and he that he had received the resolution passed by 15 members at 7.05 p.m. (wrongly typed as 7.05 a.m. in paragraph 6). For the sake of precision, these averments are reproduced below :

"6. In reply to para 6 of the writ petition, it is admitted that U/s 22 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 if a resolution of no confidence motion is passed against the President by 2/3rd members of the Municipal Council, the President is deemed to have been under suspension. It is, however, submitted that the President had postponed the meeting at 3.15 p.m. The photostat copy of Annexure P.3 purported to be signed by 15 members of Municipal Council was received by the answering respondent on 3.5.1999 at 7.05 a.m.

xx xx xx

In reply to para 9 of the writ petition, it is admitted that a copy of the resolution signed by 15 members of the Municipal Council was received by the answering respondent on 3.5.1999 at 7.05 p.m. The rest of this para relates to respondent No. 1. Hence needs no comments by the answering respondent."

(iii) the version of respondent No. 3 is contained in paragraphs (vi) and (vii) of the preliminary objections/submissions of his written statement. The same are extracted below :

"vi) That on 3.5.1999, the day on which the meeting was to be held, the answering respondent, the Executive Officer Mr. Yash Raj Goel, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Almoh and the staff of the Municipal Council were all present in the Municipal Hall at 3.00 p.m. That about fifteen members of the Municipal Council had entered the Municipal Hall and were about to be seated when 15 to 20 persons unauthorisedly entered the Municipal Hall and started raising slogans and pushing the members of the Municipal Council. The answering respondent taking cognizance of the situation asked the Superintendent of the Council Mr. B.R. Gupta to call the police. In spite of the presence of the police the situation was going out of control and there was a danger to the safety and security of the members of the Municipal Council which included women members. Thus, in the totality of the circumstances, the answering respondent, left with no other option, thought it prudent to postpone the meeting for 6.5.1999 at 3.15 p.m. It would be pertinent to mention here that the answering respondent being totally aware of the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 postponed the meeting to 6.5.1999 which was within the mandatory period of 30 days. That the fact that there was chaos in the meeting dated 3.5.1999 at 3.15 p.m. and the same was postponed to 6.5.1999 at 3.15 p.m. due to compelling circumstances is abundantly clear from the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amloh dated 3.5.1999, which was appointed as the observer in the meeting dated 3.5.1999 by the Deputy Commissioner. The above mentioned report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Almoh is annexed herewith as Annexure R.3/2. The events as they happened on 3.5.1999 have been incorporated in the official proceedings book. A true copy of the relevant portion of the above mentioned proceeding book has already been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P.4.

(vii) That on 4.5.1999 the answering respondent came to know from the Executive Officer that a resolution dated 3.5.1999 vide which the members had allegedly passed a noconfidence motion against the answering respondent was received by him at 7.05 p.m. on 3.5.1999 at his residence. That with regard to the above it is submitted that firstly the meeting in which the socalled no confidence motion was passed was said to have been held at 3.05 p.m. in the Municipal Hall. However, the same is not possible as the meeting convened by the answering respondent was postponed at 3.15 p.m. as is clear from the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amloh and also from the minutes of the meeting (Annexure P.4). Secondly, presuming the meeting to be held at 3.05 p.m. at the Municipal Hall then in that case the members who have allegedly passed the resolution should have handed over the resolution to the Executive Officer and the answering respondent in the office of the Municipal Council as the answering respondent and the Executive Officer were present in the office till 5.30 p.m. It is further very pertinent to mention here that even the so called proceeding book (private register) in which the petitioners have noted the minutes of the alleged meeting has not been deposited in the office of the Municipal Council till today, thereby clearly proving that the above register was a private register and is not a part of the official record of the Municipal Council. Thirdly, and most importantly one of the members who had signed the alleged resolution had written to the Principal Secretary, Department of Local Government, Punjab that his signature were taken on a blank paper in the register for the purpose of noting dissent to the postponement of the meeting. He has further alleged that no meeting as is being alleged by the petitioners had taken place and the blank paper on which his signatures had been taken was being used for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was taken. That the letter of the above mentioned member to the Principal Secretary is annexed herewith as Annexure R.3/3. Fourthly, the Vice President of the Municipal Council could not have convened a meeting in the present case as the President was neither absent not his office was vacant and neither he had been suspended under Section 22."

However, the averments made in the written statement of respondent No. 3 are not fully supported by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amloh. In the letter dated 3.5.1999 allegedly written by him to the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib, the officer concerned gave the following reasons to justify the postponement of the meeting :

"The undersigned today dated 3.5.99 at exact 3.00 p.m., for the purpose of discussion on the no confidence motion against the President of Municipal Council, Gobindgarh, went in the special meeting held in the meeting hall, as observer. At around 3.00 p.m. 15 to 16 Municipal Councillors entered the Hall. At this point of time, Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Gobindgarh and Superintendent Shri B.R. Gupta, Municipal Council, Gobindgarh, were present in the Hall. At around 3.05 p.m. about 15 to 20 persons, who seemed to be political workers, forcibly entered the hall and started pushing the police officials. At this time the police had to face a very difficult time. In view of this law and order problem, the President, Municipal Council, Gobindgarh postponed the meeting to 6.5.1999 at 3.15 p.m. This is for your information."

A careful analysis of the divergent versions given by the parties of the events which took place on 3.5.1999 shows that while the petitioners are categorical in their assertion that the meeting took place at the scheduled time and the motion expressing no confidence in respondent No. 3 was passed by 2/3rd of the members of the Committee, respondent No. 3 and the Sub Divisional Magistrate have given different pictures of the alleged disturbances leading to the adjournment of the meeting. Respondent No. 3 has stated that 15 to 20 persons unauthorisedly entered the Municipal hall and started raising slogans and pushing the members of the Municipal Council and thereupon he had asked the Superintendent of the Council to call the police and further that in spite of the presence of the police, situation was going out of control and there was danger to the security and safety of the members compelling him to postpone the meeting, in the letter written by him to the Deputy Commissioner, the Sub Divisional Magistrate gave out that the persons who had entered the hall had started pushing the police officials and police had to face very difficult time. He has not supported the version of respondent No. 3 that the police was called after the unauthorised persons had started raising slogans and pushing the members of the Municipal Council. However, neither of these two versions are borne out from the proceedings recorded by none else than respondent No. 3 himself in the minutes book, the true translation of which is reproduced below :

"The meeting regarding ''No Confidence Motion'' was to be held today i.e. 3.5.1999 at 3.00 p.m. Keeping in view the tension, prevailing in the city the said meeting is hereby postponed to 6.5.99 at 3.15 p.m. Although the said meeting could be postponed for 7.5.99 as per rules, hence the requisite period of 30 days ends on 7.5.99. But in the interest of justice, the said meeting is hereby postponed to 6.5.99. Due to nuisance in the hall, the signatures of the members, who are present there in the hall, cannot be secured."

What is most important is that the Executive Officer who filed written statement on behalf of respondent No. 2 has not supported the averments made in the written statement of respondent No. 3 or the contents of the letter written by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. In fact, the written statement of respondent No. 2 is totally silent about the reasons for postponement of the meeting. The minutes recorded by respondent No. 3 are conspicuously silent about the entry of 15 to 20 persons, raising of slogans and pushing the Municipal Councillors or police officials by them.

On a consideration of the entire matter, we are convinced that respondent No. 3 has manipulated the recording of proceedings showing the adjournment of the meeting held on 3.5.1999 but it is not sufficient to declare that the motion of no confidence passed by 2/3rd members of the Committee is nullity. As a matter of fact, immediately on receiving the requisition submitted by 15 members expressing no confidence in him, respondent No. 3 must have seen the writing on the wall and after being convinced that he will not be able to break the group of 15 or muster enough support to defeat the motion, he made all out effort to scuttle the motion. The first step which he took in this direction was writing letter dated 16.4.1999 to the Deputy Commissioner opposing the consideration of requisition. The second step was to enact the drama of postponing the meeting on the pretext of disturbance in the meeting hall. One may not take any exception to the desire of respondent No. 3 to remain in the office of the President but he can do so only with the support of majority of the members and not by adopting dubious means after having lost the support of 2/3rd members. This is precisely what respondent No. 3 has done. Unfortunately, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amloh became a party to the design of respondent No. 3 to scuttle the will of the majority of the Municipal Councillors. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the action of respondent No. 3 to make a show of postponing the meeting held on 3.5.1999 is liable to be treated as nullity.

The argument of Shri Aggarwal that the resolution passed by the petitioners expressing no confidence in respondent No. 3 should be treated as void in view of the mandate of byelaw 15 of the byelaws appears to be based on an erroneous assumption that the action of respondent No. 3 to postpone the meeting was legally correct and factually justified. The fact of the matter is that the postponement of the meeting by respondent No. 3 was legally impermissible and factually unjustified and in view of our finding that he manipulated the recording of postponement of the meeting in order to scuttle the motion of no confidence passed by 2/3rd of the members, byelaw 15 cannot come to his rescue and the no confidence motion passed by the requisite number of members cannot be ignored on the pretext of adjournment of the meeting.

We also do not find any substance in the argument of Shri Aggarwal that ''no confidence motion'' should be ignored because the proceedings were not recorded in the register maintained for the purpose. In our view, the petitioners were justified in recording the proceedings on a separate sheet of paper because respondent No. 3 and the Executive Officer had refused to give register for the purpose of recording the proceedings. Theoretically, proceeding books may be in the possession of the Executive Officer but perusal of the original register produced by Shri Pathela shows that the proceedings of the meeting held on 3.5.1999 have been recorded by respondent No. 3 himself. Therefore, the nonhanding over the register to the petitioners was quite in tune with his efforts to frustrate the motion of no condition and no illegality was committed by the petitioners when they recorded the proceedings on papers other than the proceedings book. In a case of this nature in which the holder of an office in a local body wants to stick to the office in spite of the loss of confidence of majority, tricks like the nonhanding over the proceedings book are usually employed with a view to frustrate the will of majority. However, the Court cannot put seal of approval on such attempts and thereby stultify the democracy at the grass root level. The memo No. 8/82/95ILG4/13030 dated 26.7.1995 issued by the Secretary to Government Punjab, Local Government Department by which it was ordered that proceeding books must be kept in the custody of the Executive Officer and by none else, on which reliance has been placed by Shri Aggarwal, cannot be of any help to the cause of respondent No. 3 because, as already mentioned above, the required register was not made available for recording the correct proceedings of the meeting held on 3.5.1999.

The fact, that one of the signatories of the resolution, namely, Shri Gursharan Singh later on resiled and has made an attempt to support respondent No. 3 is inconsequential because these is no dispute between the parties that even without his support the resolution will be deemed to have been passed by 2/3rd members of the Municipal Council.

On the basis of above discussion, we hold that the motion of no confidence was validly passed by the requisite numbr of the Municipal Councillors and, therefore, by virtue of deeming clause contained in Section 22 of the Act, respondent No. 3 will have to be treated as suspended. The official respondents are directed to take appropriate steps in this direction. They are also given liberty to take further proceedings in accordance with law.

The writ petition is allowed in the manner indicated above.