JUDGMENT PADHYE J. - The petitioner is one of the Councillors of the Municipal Council, Bhandara to which elections were held on 3-6-1967. The Municipal Council consists of 22 elected Councillors and 2 co-opted Councillors. The respondents Nos. 4 to 24 and the petitioner together with one Fattuji Meshram were the elected Councillors. The respondents Nos. 25 and 26 are the co-opted Councillors. In the election held on 2-7-1967 the respondent No.5 was elected by the Councillors as the President of the Council. Fattuji Meshram Was elected as the Vice-President in the same meeting. Fattuji Meshram, however, died on 18-1-1969 and thereby there was a vacancy in the office of the Vice-President as well as a Councillor. This vacancy of the Vice-President was subsequently filled in by electing the respondent No.4 Shamlalsing as the Vice-President of the Council. In a meeting of the Council held on 1-2-1969 a resolution was passed that the respondent No.5 who was then the President shall cease to be the President. This resolution was challenged by the respondent No.5 in Bhasker v. S. G. Daithankar, S. D. 0.1 and the election of a fresh President was stayed, with the result that the office of the President remained vacant. The vacancy caused by the death of Fattuji Meshram as a Councillor was also not filled in till 25-5-1969. In the meantime, the respondents Nos. 5 to 14 and the petitioner sent a requisition on 27-3-1969 to the respondent No.4 purporting to be under section 55 (1) of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for convening a meeting for moving a resolution that the respondent No.4 shall cease to be the Vice-President. Such a notice was sent to the respondent No.4 as he was then performing all the duties and exercising all the powers of the President under section 59 (1) (b) of the Act. On 31-3-1969, the respondent No.5, the Ex-President, wrote to the Collector that a requisition signed by 11 Councillors was delivered on 27-3-1969 to the respondent No.4 for convening a special meeting of the Council for considering the motion of removal of the Vice-President of the Council. He further stated in that letter that under section 55 (3) of the Act such a requisitioned meeting was to be convened by the President. He further stated in that letter that under section 55 (3) of the Act such a requisitioned meeting was to be convened by the President. However, there was a casual vacancy in the office of the President and hence the duty to convene a special meeting for the said purpose was cast upon the Vice-President himself, namely, the respondent No.4, under section 59 (1) (b) of the Act. By this letter, he requested the Collector to direct the respondent No.4 Shamlalsingh to convene a special meeting for considering the subject mentioned in the said requisition. 2. The respondent No.4 did not convene any such meeting. The petitioner and the respondents Nos. 5 to 14, therefore, submitted on 11-4-1969 a written requisition under section 81 of the Act to the Collector, Bhandara, requesting him to convene a special meeting for considering the motion of the removal of the Vice-President. Acting on this requisition, the Collector by his memorandum dated 19-4-1969 ordered a special meeting for 24th April 1969 at 1 p. m. and authorised the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhandara to preside over that special meeting. The meeting was held on 24-4-1969 at which the respondent No.1 presided. At this meeting 22 Councillors were present including the petitioner and one co-opted Councillor. The motion of no-confidence was moved in the said meeting. It was put to vote and 11 Councillors voted in favour of the resolution and 10 Councillors voted against the resolution. The co-opted Councillors did not take part in the said voting. The strength of the Municipal Council was of 22 elected Councillors and 2 co-opted Councillors, but at the relevant time, there was one vacancy in the office of the Councillor owing to the death of Fattuji Meshram and there were only 21 Councillors who were entitled to sit and vote. The Presiding Officer took the view that since the total number of Councillors excluding the co-opted Councillors would be 22, the minimum number required to pass the resolution would be 12 and, therefore, he declared that the resolution of no-confidence failed inasmuch as the minimum required majority of 12 Councillors did not vote in favour of the resolution. The petitioner, therefore, has filed this petition challenging the order of the Presiding Officer, the respondent No.1, by which he declared that the resolution has failed. The petitioner, therefore, has filed this petition challenging the order of the Presiding Officer, the respondent No.1, by which he declared that the resolution has failed. The petitioner asked for a writ that it should be declared that the resolution dated 24-4-1969 for the removal of the Vice-President is validly passed by a majority of the total number of Councillors as required by section 55 (2) of the Act and that the respondent No. 4 ceases to be the Vice-President of the Council. 3. The petition is opposed by the contesting respondents. It is alleged, in the first place, that the Collector had no power to convene a meeting for the removal of the Vice-President on the requisition given to him by some of the Councillors. I, was contended that the power to convene a meeting for passing a resolution of the removal of the Vice-President vests in the President and President alone and the Collector has no power to convene such a meeting. It is further contended that the order passed by the Presiding Officer, the respondent No.1, is a legal order inasmuch as the total number of Councillors for this Council was 22 and the minimum required majority would be of 12 Councillors and the Councillors voting in favour of the resolution fell short by one vote. It is contended that, in the first place, though under section 59 (1) (b), the Vice-President has a duty to exercise all the powers and to perform all the duties of the President pending the election of a new President, he is not a President or a full-fledged President to whom a requisition under section 55 (1) could be given for the removal of the Vice-President and secondly, it is urged that even if such a requisition could be validly given to the Vice-President who is performing the duties of a President and such a person refuses to convene a meeting or even the full-fledged President refuses to convene a meeting, there is no power in the Collector to convene such a meeting and hence the meeting itself was illegal. 4. We have already held in Smt. Suman v. The Collector, Chandrapur2 that for the removal of the Vice-President a requisition cannot be given to the Collector and the Collector has no power to convene or hold any such meeting. 4. We have already held in Smt. Suman v. The Collector, Chandrapur2 that for the removal of the Vice-President a requisition cannot be given to the Collector and the Collector has no power to convene or hold any such meeting. In that case, the requisition was not given to the Vice-President, who was performing the duties of the President, but was given directly to the Collector and, therefore, the question that falls to be considered here was not for consideration in that case. In the instant case, the requisition was sent to the respondent No.4, who was not only the Vice-President, but was also exercising the powers and performing the duties of the President. On a vacancy being caused in the office of the President, the Vice-President does not become the President. He retains his office as the Vice-President and is further empowered to exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the President. He, therefore, cannot be called a President as contemplated under section 55 of the Act. Section 55 of the Act envisages two persons occupying these two different offices. Sub-section (2) of section 55 reads as under: "55. (1) • * • • • (2) The requisition for such special meeting shall be signed by not less than one-fourth of the total number of Councillors (excluding the co-opted Councillors) and shall, if such meeting is to be convened for considering the resolution for removal from office- (a) of the President or of the President as well as the Vice-President, be sent to the Collector: (b) of the Vice-President, he sent to the President." If we closely look to the scheme of this provision it appears that the requisition is to be given to a person other than the one against whom the motion is to be moved. Thus, for a motion against the President requisition is to be given to the Collector, for a motion against the President and Vice-President jointly, the requisition is to be given to the Collector and for a motion against the Vice-President, the requisition is to b: given to the President. It does not contemplate the giving of the requisition to the same person against whom the motion of no-confidence is to be laid. It does not contemplate the giving of the requisition to the same person against whom the motion of no-confidence is to be laid. If that was the intention, it could have been clearly stated in the Act and such a contingency, where the office of the President is vacant and Vice-President is in addition to his duties exercising the powers and performing the duties of the President, would have been provided for by naming a person to whom the requisition is to be given and who is to convene and conduct the meeting. In the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, the requisition for moving the motion of no-confidence against the President is to be given to the President himself and he is enjoined to call a meeting for consideration of the said resolution and if he fails to call such a meeting within the prescribed period, then the Commissioner is authorised to call such a meeting. No such provision is made in the Act. Since the requisition cannot be said to be sent to the President as envisaged by sub-section (2) of section 55, it cannot be said to be an effective requisition on which any further action could be taken. Even assuming that such a requisition could be given to the Vice-President who is exercising the powers and performing the duties of the President and he fails to convene any meeting, then there is no provision under section 55 to empower the Collector to convene any meeting. In fact, even if the office of the President is filled in and the requisition for the removal of the Vice-President is sent to such President and he fails to convene a meeting, there is no power under section 55 in the Collector to convene any such meeting. Reliance is, however, placed on the provisions of section 81 of the Act and it is contended that since the Vice-President who was then exercising the powers and performing the duties of the President and who can be deemed for all purposes to be a President, has failed to convene the meeting, the Collector could convene the same under sub-section (3) of section 81 of the Act. It is clear that no such power can be found in section 55 where then; is a full-fledged President or a Vice-President exercising the powers and performing the duties of the President and he fails to convene a meeting. So far as subsection (3) of section 81 is concerned, it is confined only to such meetings which are to be convened on the request of the requisite number of Councillors under sub-section (2) of section 81 and has no reference to the meetings to be called under section 55. This is not a case of that type. The meeting to be held under sub-section (2) of section 81 is a kind of a meeting which is different from the meeting to be called under section 55 for removing the President or the Vice-President. The requirements of the two provisions are different. Whereas under section 55 (1) the requisition has to be by not less than one fourth of the total number of Councillors excluding the co-opted Councillor the requisition under sub-section (2) of section 81 has to be by not less than one-fourth of the total number of Councillors which would also include the co-opted Councillors. Where, therefore, the proposed meeting is not under sub-section (2) of section 81, the provisions of sub-section (3) thereof would not be attracted. The meeting, therefore, called by the Collector was itself bad and illegal as he had no authority to convene such a meeting. Even if a resolution by the requisite majority had been passed in such a meeting, it would have no effect of removing the Vice-President, the respondent No.4. 5. Assuming that the Collector had the power to convene and hold such a meeting and the meeting was valid, even then the resolution passed by 11 Councillors voting in favour of the motion and 10 Councillors voting against the motion, cannot be said to be validly passed and would not have the effect of removing the Vice-President, the respondent No.4. The total number of Councillors to be elected in this Council was 22 and though at the relevant time one seat had become vacant on account of the death of Fattuji Meshram, yet the total strength of the Council excluding the co-opted Councillors remained 22. The total number of Councillors to be elected in this Council was 22 and though at the relevant time one seat had become vacant on account of the death of Fattuji Meshram, yet the total strength of the Council excluding the co-opted Councillors remained 22. Thus the total number of Councillors excluding the co-opted Councillors for the purpose of the said meeting is to be taken as 22 and the minimum number required for passing a resolution under section 55 (1) of the Act must be taken to be 12 as held by us in Bhaskar v. S. G. Daithankar, S. D. O. Since the number of the Councillors voting in favour of the resolution was only 11, that is, one short of the required majority, the respondent No. 1 rightly declared that the resolution had failed and had no effect of removing him from his office. 6. The petition, therefore, failed on both the grounds and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.