Revanna Siddappa vs Dy. Commr., Bijapur and Others

The petitioner who was the President of the City Municipal Council, Bijapur and, who stood removed from the office of the President by expression of vote of no-confidence passed by the majority of councillors, has questioned the legality of that resolution in this writ petition.

The petitioner was the President of the City Municipal Council, Bijapur, A requisition signed by 26 councillors out of 32 councillors expressing their intention to move a resolution expressing want of confidence in him given as required under the first proviso to sub-sec (9) of S. 42 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was received by him on 6-10-1978. Sub-section (2) of S. 47 of the Act makes it obligatory for the President to call a special general meeting of the Municipal Council on a date not beyond fifteen days after the presentation of such a requisition. Though admittedly the requisition was received by the president on 6-10-1978, he did not convene the meeting of the municipal council on or before 21-10-1978. However, he called a special general meeting of the Municipal Council on 23-10-78. The majority of the councillors refused to attend the said meeting as they felt that the president had no authority to call the meeting on 23-10-1978 pursuant to the requisition given on 6-10-1978. But on 23-10-1978, the president purported to adjourn the meeting to 15-6-1979 on the ground of want of quorum.

Sub-section (3) of S. 47 of the Act confers a right on the vice-president or one-third of the whole number of councillors to convene the meeting of the municipal council if the president fails to convene the meeting as required under sub-sec. (2) of S. 47 of the Act. As the president failed to convene the meeting on or before 21-10-1978, pursuant to the requisition given under Sec. 42 (9) of the Act by the 26 Councillors, the Vice-president exercised his right to convene the meeting of the municipal council on 27-10-1978. On the said day, a resolution was passed expressing no confidence in the president. All the, 29 councillors present, supported the resolution. The effect of the said resolution was that the petitioner stood removed from the office of the president in view ofSec. 42(9) of the Act. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the resolution passed on 27-10-1978.

Sri Jayakumar Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, raised the following contentions:

(i) that the resolution passed in the meeting dated 27-10-1978 is illegal for the reasons that the same subject had come up before the municipal council on 23-10-1978 and it was adjourned to 15-6-1979 for want of quorum.

(ii) that the meeting hold on 27-10-1978 was invalid for the reason that a point of order had been raised by one R.M. Pungiwale in view of pendency of a civil suit filed by him and the said point of order was accepted by the president and therefore no meeting could be held on the said date;

(iii) as the requisition required to be given under proviso to section 42 (9) was not given in person to the president, there was no valid requisition and consequently the meeting held on 27-10-1978 and the resolution passed are null and void.

In support of his first contention, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the second proviso to sub-section (9) of S. 42 of the Act. According to the said provision, in cases 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 dateof the decision of the municipal council. The learned Counsel would have been right if the meeting on 23-10-1978 was a valid meeting and in the said meeting, the resolution was negatived. In the present case, both the grounds did not exist. As stated earlier the requisition signed by the 26 councillors reached the president on 6-10-1978. Therefore, in view of Sec. 47(2), the president was bound to call the meeting for a date not more than fifteen days after the presentation of the requisition. Therefore, the president could have called a special general meeting for the purpose of moving the intended resolution expressing want of confidence in him on or before 21-10-1978. The president having failed to utilise the opportunity given to him under sub-section (2) of Sec. 47 of the Act, could not have called the meeting for considering the motion of no confidence against him pursuant to the requisition received by him on 6-10-1978, on 23-10-1978. Therefore, the meeting held on 23-10-1978 was not a valid meeting. Further, in order to attract the prohibition contained in proviso (2) to sub-section (9) of S. 42 of the Act, the resolution must have been negatived. But in the present case, all that happened on 23-10-78 was, adjournment of the meeting on the ground of want of quorum to 15-6-1979 which date, as pointed out by the respondent, happens to be the, date on which the term of the present president comes to an end. Therefore, it is clear that the, president, in convening the meeting on 23-10-1978, has acted contrary to the provisions of Sec. 47(2) of the Act, and the adjourning of the, meeting to 15-6-1979 betrays his desire to ward off the no confidence motion till his term comes to an end though he was unable to avoid his immediate removal. Therefore, there was no bar to the councillors to meet on 27-10-1978 as they did and consider the intended resolution.

In support of his second contention, the learned Counsel has relied on Exhibit ''E''. Exhibit E incorporates the point of order raised by one of the municipal councillors referred to earlier. The point of order raised by him was that as a civil suit has been filed questioning the validity of the notice of the meeting convened on 27-10-1978, before the Principal Munsiff''s Court, the subject should not be considered in view of Rule 32 of the Karnataka Municipalities (Procedure of conduct and Business) Rules. 1967. It is interesting to note that the civil suit to which reference is made in the point of order, is the one filed by the same lone councillor R.M. Pungiwale who was supporting the president, questioning the legality of the meeting convened by the vice-president in exercise of his statutory right under S. 47(3) of the Act. The president, according to the petitioner, accepted the point of order and took away the proceedings book as it was required to be produced before the Munsiff''s Court. The learned counsel urged as the president accepted the point of order, the meeting held on 27-10-1978 was illegal.

I am unable to agree, It is not at all clear from Exhibit ''E'' that the point of order was raised in the meeting, that there was any discussion on the point of order, and the President gave the ruling. On the other hand, it is stated in the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondent-4 that as objection was raised to the petitioner presiding over the meeting, he left the meeting hall with the proceedings book. Further a point of order of this type and its acceptance by the President even if it is true would be invalid. In view of S. 56 of the Act an ordinary or special general meeting could be adjourned only with the consent of the majority of the councillors. In a meeting called by the Vice-President in exercise of his right under S. 47 (3) of the Act for the purpose of considering a motion expressing want of confidence in the President, the President cannot in the guise of accepting a point of order adjourn the meeting without the consent of the majority (See J.T. Mathias v. A.M. Bangalore, (1975) 1 Kar. L.J. 114. In the circumstances, the rest of the Councillors were entitled to hold the meeting under the chairmanship of the Vice-President. They committed no illegality in holding the meeting on 27-10-1978 and passing the resolution supported by 29 councillors. Hence I reject the second contention.

The validity of the resolution has to be determined with reference to the requirements of sub-sec (9) of sec. 42 of the Act According to that provision, before the resolution could be moved, at least ten days notice is required to be given signed by not less than one third of the total number of Councillors and secondly the resolution to be effective should be supported by a majority of not less than two thirds of the total number of councillors. In the present case, it is not disputed that the total number of councillors of Bijapur Municipal Council is 32. A notice signed by 26 councillors had been given. The resolution expressing ''no confidence'' was passed by the vote of 29 Councillors. Therefore by operation of sub-sec. (9) of Sec. 42 of the Act, the President stood removed from the office, the moment the resolution was passed by the requisite majority.

Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first requirement of proviso to sub-sec. (9) of Sec. 42 was not complied with as the requisition signed by 29 councillors was not presented to him personally. He, however, agreed that it was handed over in the office, of the municipal council and through tappal, it reached him on 6-10-1978. All that sub-sec. (9) of section 42 requires is, that a requisition to, call a meeting expressing want of confidence in the President or vice-president should be given to the President or vice President as the case may be, at least ten days before moving the resolution. There is no particular procedure prescribed as to how the said requisition should reach the president or vice-president. It may be given either in person or handed over in the office as has been done in the present case. Statutory requirement stands complied with if the requisition had been received by the president or vice-president, as the case may be ten days before the date on which the resolution is sought to be moved in the meeting of the municipal council. In the present case, the resolution was moved on 27-10-1978 and the requisition had reached the president on 6-10-1978. Therefore, there is no substance in this contention also.

For the reasons aforesaid, I make the following order:

(i) Rule discharged;

(ii) Writ Petition dismissed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 27 (one set).

Sri V.C. Brahmarayappa, High Court Government Advocate, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks.