JUDGMENT J. Sahai, J. - The Petitioner Lakshmi Narain Misra has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the allegation that he was elected Senior Vice - President of the Municipal Board of Moghalsarai, Respondent No. l,on 7th May 1960 defeating Respondent No. 2 Mohammad Rasul. The election was held by means of a special resolution as provided by S. 54 of the U.P. Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the 29th of June 1960 nine members of the Board passed a resolution purporting to be one u/s 94(6)(a) of the Act. The English translation of that resolution is to the following effect: In the place of Sri Lakshmi Narain Misra, Sri Mohammad Rasul be elected Vice - President of the Municipal Board of Moghalsarai and the election of Sri Lakshmi Narain Misra dated 7-5-1960 be cancelled. 2. The prayer in the petition is that the resolution mentioned above be quashed by means of a writ of certiorari. 3. A counter affidavit and a rejoinder affidavit have been filed in the case and later on a supplementary counter affidavit and a supplementary rejoinder affidavit were also filed. It is not necessary to go into the various allegations made in these affidavits because the point for decision is a very short one, the name being whether the Board was competent to have cancelled the resolution electing the Senior Vice - President of the Board before the expiry of the period for which he was elected. I have heard Mr. S.C. Khare for the Petitioner and S.N. Kackar for the Respondents. 4. S. 54 of the Act reads as follows: 54.(1) Every Board shall have a Vice President or a Senior and a Junior Vice - President elected as occasion arises by the Board from among its members by special resolution. (2) The term of office of a Vice President of any description shall be one year from the date of his election or the residue of his term of office as a member of the board whichever is less. (3) Any Vice - President who wishes to resign may intimate his intention in writing to the President and on his resignation being accepted by the Board he shall be deemed to have vacated his office. 5. (3) Any Vice - President who wishes to resign may intimate his intention in writing to the President and on his resignation being accepted by the Board he shall be deemed to have vacated his office. 5. The Petitioner would have been entitled under Sub-section (2) of S. 54 of the Act to remain in the office for a period of one year from the date of his election or the residue of his term as a member of the Board whichever is less. In the present case it is admitted by both the parties that it would be one year's period which would he less. The Petitioner had therefore a right; to continue in office for a period of one year commencing from 7th May 1960. The submission on behalf of the Respondents is that the tenure provided by S. 54(2) of the Act was subject to the powers of the Board u/s 94(6)(a) of the Act. In other words it was contended that the tenure provided(sic) there could be curtailed by a special resolution of the Board if the Board decided to cancel the resolution electing the Petitioner to the office of the Vice- President. It is true that under the provisions of S. 54 of the Act, unlike the election of the President, the election of the Vice - President has got to be by a special resolution. It is also true that under the provisions of S. 94(6) of the Act a Board has the power to cancel a resolution by itself in certain circumstances. The relevant portion of S. 94 of the Act reads as follows: 94(6) A resolution of a board shall not be modified or cancelled within six months after the passing thereof: (a) unless previous notice has been given setting forth fully the resolution which it is proposed to modify, or cancel and the motion or proposition for the modification or cancellation of such resolution, and (b) except by a resolution supported by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the board for the time being. 6. 6. Before I examine as to how far the action of the Board in removing the Petitioner from the office of Senior Vice - President can be sustained under the provisions of S. 94(6) of the Act, I would like to notice another provision i.e. S. 87 of the Act, which runs as follows: 87. Transaction of business at meeting Subject to any provision to the contrary made by regulation in this behalf any business may be transacted at any meeting, provided that no business, which is required to be transacted by a special resolution shall be transacted unless previous notice of the intention to transact such business has been given. Provided also that nothing in this section shall apply to a motion that the Board shall adopt a resolution expressing non - confidence in the President or a motion that the Board shall adopt a resolution calling upon the President to resign. 7. This section, to my mind, gives the Board the power to transact any business or pass any resolution except the one expressing non confidence in the President or calling upon him to resign'. In the present case it is common ground that previous notice of the resolution passed on the 29th of June 1960 had already been given. I, therefore, see no difficulty in the way of the Board in passing a resolution which may have amounted to a motion of non-confidence against the Petitioner. The case of the Vice-President is not covered by the proviso to S. 87 of the Act. Consequently so far as the Vice-President is concerned there is nothing which curtails the power of the Board contained in the enacting clause of S. 87 to pass such resolution as it likes. If the legislature had wanted to create an exception in favour of the Senior or Junior Vice-President also it would have included them also along with the President in the Proviso to S. 87 of the Act. Even though normally the tenure of office of a Vice-President is one year or the remainder of the term, the same can be abruptly terminated by a resolution passed by the Board to that effect. Even though normally the tenure of office of a Vice-President is one year or the remainder of the term, the same can be abruptly terminated by a resolution passed by the Board to that effect. The very fact that the legislature stated clearly with regard to the President, who has also got a fixed tenure and a much longer one than the Senior Vice-President that while exercising its power u/s 87 of the Act the Board cannot pass a resolution expressing non confidence in the President or calling upon him to resign is indicative of the fact that the legislature contemplated to include in S. 87 on the part of a Board the power to pass a resolution expressing non confidence or calling upon a Senior or a Junior Vice-President to resign. In this connection it may also be remembered that the general law is that an elected office is always at the pleasure of the corporation which makes the election and generally speaking every autonomous and democratic body has the right to remove a person elected to an office by itself. The law on the point has been summarised in Vol. IX of Halsbury's Laws of England, Simonds Edition, at p. 37 in the following words: Where a person is appointed to and holds an office at the will of the corporation he may be removed from it at the will of the corporation which may be signified by mere declaration thereof by the competent authority though in some cases it must be under the corporate seal. 8. The Petitioner has no common law right to hold the office of the Senior Vice-President. It is a right which has been created and conferred on him by the Act and the said right can be exercised only within the limitations provided by and subject to the provisions of the Act. Consequently if the Act envisages by means of a resolution u/s 87 of the Act a termination of the tenure of the office of the Vice-President earlier than provided in S. 54 of the Act, the Petitioner cannot insist upon completing the normal period for which he was elected. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the statement of law made in Vol. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the statement of law made in Vol. 62 of the Corpus Juris Secondum on page 748, which reads as follows: Where the presiding officer of the municipal governing body is chosen by the members from one of their own member, he holds office, in the absence of statute or charter provision providing otherwise, at the will or pleasure of the members of such body and may be removed by them at any time, but, as long as he is the member of the governing body and has not been removed from the office of presiding officer, he continues in such office until his successor has been elected and qualified. Reliance was placed on another passage on page 772. That passage reads as follows: A municipal council has the power, if the rights of third persons have not intervened and if vested rights are not impaired, to reconsider or rescind action previously taken, provided this subsequent action is not prohibited by, or inconsistent with, charter or statutory provisions or rules of the council; and the fact that a statute is silent on the subject of submitting a proposition for reconsideration of a decision does not operate to forbid it. Under this rule the governing body may reconsider, adopt, rescind or ordinance.... On the other hand, no right of reconsideration or rescission exists where the action taken by the council exhausts its power in the matter sought to be reconsidered or if the rights of third persons have intervened and vested rights would be impaired as where it has appointed or elected a person to fill a vacancy in the council or to an office therein which carries with it tenure for the full term. The authorities on which the statement of law quoted above has been founded are mentioned in the foot note but none of those reports are available here and it is not known exactly as to what was decided in those cases. In any case having read the two passages quoted above it does not appear to me that the law in America is that a person elected to a municipal office for a fixed term cannot be removed at all, even though there be a provision analogous to S. 87 of our Act. In any case having read the two passages quoted above it does not appear to me that the law in America is that a person elected to a municipal office for a fixed term cannot be removed at all, even though there be a provision analogous to S. 87 of our Act. In any case it is not clear that there is any provision analogous to S. 87 of the Act existing in the municipal statutes in that country. The question as to what is the law in England or America cannot be of much help in interpreting our own Act. I have already said above that by virtue of S. 87 of the Act a Municipal Board has got the power of removing a Senior Vice President even before he has completed the period for which he was elected. 10. It is true that the Municipal Board has not purported to act u/s 87 of the Act but u/s 94(6) of the Act. It however, does not matter under what provision the Board has purported to act so long as it can be held that the Board had the power to pass the impugned resolution. It is well settled that if an authority has the power to pass an order the order will not fail if it purports to have been passed under a provision which would not authorise the authority to pass that order. See P. Balakotaiah Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1958 SC 232 I am satisfied that it was competent for the Board to have passed the impugned resolution. 11. I am, however, not satisfied that the Board could have validly passed the impugned resolution u/s 94(6) of the Act. The special resolution by which the Petitioner was elected to the office of the Senior Vice-President exhausted itself after it was acted upon and the Petitioner assumed charge of the office of Senior Vice President. The mere cancellation of that resolution could not bring about the result that the Petitioner had to quit office. It is only those resolutions that are capable of being cancelled which have got a subsisting effect. It is not possible to cancel a resolution which having served the purpose for which it was passed has got no subsisting effect and has completely vanished away. It is only those resolutions that are capable of being cancelled which have got a subsisting effect. It is not possible to cancel a resolution which having served the purpose for which it was passed has got no subsisting effect and has completely vanished away. The resolution electing the Petitioner to the office of Senior Vice-President having lived itself out stood effected and consequently there was nothing left to be cancelled. Besides a motion of non confidence is not the same thing as the cancellation of the resolution electing a person to an office. In the Act a motion of non-confidence has been treated at any rate with regard to the President as a very different motion than the one merely cancelling the resolution by which he was elected to the office. In all democratic institutions including the municipalities created under the Act the proceedings for a motion of non-confidence are quite distinct than the proceedings for the cancellation of a resolution. In the case of the President it is clearly provided that he can be removed only by means of a motion of non-confidence. In other words he cannot be removed by the sheer expedient of the Board passing a resolution cancelling the one electing him to the office. The expression "motion of non-confidence" is a term of art and it has acquired a completely different meaning from a resolution merely cancelling the one electing a person to an office. Having carefully perused the various provisions of the Act it appears to me that a resolution of non-confidence cannot be equated with or is not a synonym for a resolution cancelling the one electing a person to office. As a motion of non-confidence has been separately treated in the Act it appears to me that it cannot be included in a mere motion cancelling the resolution by which a person was elected. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it was not the intention of the Act to include a motion of non-confidence on the Senior Vice-President in the resolution of cancellation contemplated by S. 94(6) of the Act. 12. I have already said above that there is nothing in the language of S. 87 of the Act which precludes the Board from passing a resolution of non-confidence on the Senior Vice-President or calling upon him to resign. 12. I have already said above that there is nothing in the language of S. 87 of the Act which precludes the Board from passing a resolution of non-confidence on the Senior Vice-President or calling upon him to resign. The present resolution in effect is nothing but one of no-confidence on him or one removing him from the office of the Senior Vice-President. Therefore even though the Board could not have passed the impugned resolution u/s 94(6) of the Act, it had the power to pass the same u/s 87 of the Act. 13. The petition must therefore, fail. It is dismissed but there is no order as to costs. The interim order is vacated.