Rameshwar Das Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh — 1972 DIGILAW 417 (ALL)

JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - Municipal Board, Hapur, in district Meerut, is constituted of twenty-one members including the President. Rameshwar Das Mittal, the petitioner, was elected President of the Municipal Board, Hapur (hereinafter referred to as the Board) in May, 1971. On 9th August, 1972 a written notice of motion of non-confidence against the petitioner signed by fifteen members of the Board together with a copy of the motion was delivered in person to the District Magistrate by two members of the Board, namely, Ved Prakash and Brij Mohan. In exercise of his powers under Sec. 87-A (3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, the District Magistrate convened a meeting of the Board for consideration of the motion to be held at the office of the Board on 11th September, 1972. 2. On 22nd August, 1972, six registered envelopes were received in the office of the District Magistrate, Meerut, containing six typed resignation letters from the membership of the Board purporting to have been signed by Khem Chand, Chidda Singh, Shahid Beg, Brij Mohan, Vijendra Kumar and Khushwant Rai, respondent nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively to the petition. On the following day, namely, 23rd August, 1972, another three registered envelopes were received in the office of the District Magistrate containing three typed resignation letters from the membership of the Board purporting to have been signed by Rajendra Prasad, Magan Lal and Chokhey Lal, respondent nos. 10 to 12 to the writ petition. The District Magistrate forwarded the aforesaid nine resignation letters to the State Government for necessary action. Meanwhile, notices were issued by the District Magistrate to the members of the Board giving information about the time, date and place of the meeting convened for the purpose of consideration of the motion of non-confidence against the petitioner but no such notices were issued to respondent nos. 4 to 12 in view of their resignations from the membership of the Board. It appears that respondent nos. 4 to 12 came to know of the resignation letters and the action taken by the District Magistrate on 2nd September, 1972, five members of the Board, namely, Vijendra Kumar, Khushwant Rai, Chokhey Lal, Brij Mohan and Mogan Lal made an application before the District Magistrate denying their resignation letters. It appears that respondent nos. 4 to 12 came to know of the resignation letters and the action taken by the District Magistrate on 2nd September, 1972, five members of the Board, namely, Vijendra Kumar, Khushwant Rai, Chokhey Lal, Brij Mohan and Mogan Lal made an application before the District Magistrate denying their resignation letters. They asserted that they had never sent any resignation letter to the District Magistrate and that somebody interested in defeating the motion of non-confidence had committed forgery. They made a prayer for being allowed to take part in the meeting convened for considering the motion of non-confidence on 11th September, 1972. Each of the five persons namely Vijendra Kumar, Khushwant Rai, Chokhey Lal, Brij Mohan and Mogan Lal filed affidavits before the District Magistrate affirming that they had not sent any resignation to the District Magistrate from the membership of the Board and that they desired to continue as members of the Board. Similar application and affidavits were filed by the four other affected members of the Board, namely, Rajendra Prasad, Khem Chand, Shahid Beg and Chhidda Singh on 3rd September, 1972. The District Magistrate forwarded the affidavits of the aforesaid nine members to the State Government. By a letter dated 5th September, 1972, the State Government informed the District Magistrate that respondent nos. 4 to 12 who had denied to have sent the resignation letters, were entitled to continue as members and the affidavits filed by them prima facie indicated that their contention was correct. The State Government, therefore, directed that there was no vacancy in the membership on account of the said resignation letters. In pursuance of the letter of the State Government the District Magistrate treated respondent nos. 4 to 12 as members of the Board and issued notices requesting them to attend the meeting of 11th September, 1972. Intimation to that effect was given to the petitioner also who was the President of the Board. 3. On 11th September, 1972, a meeting of the Board was held which was presided over by Sri R. S. Tripathi, Munsif Havali, Meerut, a Civil Judicial Officer. The meeting was attended by fourteen members of the Board including respondent nos. 4 to 12. All the fourteen members present at the meeting supported the motion of non-confidence and voted in its favour. The Civil Judicial Officer, namely. The meeting was attended by fourteen members of the Board including respondent nos. 4 to 12. All the fourteen members present at the meeting supported the motion of non-confidence and voted in its favour. The Civil Judicial Officer, namely. Sri R. S. Tripathi, declared the motion of Non-confidence to have been carried. The minutes of the meeting together with a copy of the motion and the result of the voting thereon were sent to the District Magistrate and the petitioner also as required by Sec. 87-A (11) of the Act. The petitioner could not be served personally. Hence copies of the minutes of the meeting and the motion of non-confidence were affixed at his door. The petitioner thereupon filed this petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the motion of non-confidence, amongst other things. The petitioner claimed a relief for the issue of a writ of quo warranto calling upon the respondents 4 to 12 to show under what authority they were holding the office of membership of the Board. A writ of mandamus was also claimed by the petitioner directing respondent nos. 1 and 2, namely, the State Government and the District Magistrate, not to treat respondent nos. 4 to 12 as members of the Board and further not to give effect to the motion of non-confidence alleged to have been passed against the petitioner. A writ of certiorari was also claimed by the petitioner quashing the resolution of non-confidence passed at the meeting of the Board dated 11th September, 1972. A writ of mandamus was further claimed directing the State Government and the District Magistrate not to interfere with the petitioner's functioning as President of the Municipal Board, Hapur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested us to send for the original resignation letters as the same would show that the respondent nos. 4 to 12 had signed the same. We accordingly directed the Standing Counsel to produce the original letters and also other documents e.g., the motion of non-confidence, the notice of motion of non-confidence and the affidavit in original filed by respondent nos. 4 to 12 before the District Magistrate. 5. At the time of the hearing of the writ petition for admission the respondent nos. We accordingly directed the Standing Counsel to produce the original letters and also other documents e.g., the motion of non-confidence, the notice of motion of non-confidence and the affidavit in original filed by respondent nos. 4 to 12 before the District Magistrate. 5. At the time of the hearing of the writ petition for admission the respondent nos. 4 to 12 filed affidavits before this Court asserting therein that they had never signed any letter of resignation nor they had sent any such resignation letter to the District Magistrate and that on coming to know that some resignation letters had been sent to the District Magistrate purporting to be on their behalf they refuted the same by filing affidavit before the District Magistrate. On behalf of the District Magistrate also an affidavit was filed before us giving details of the circumstances in which the resignation letters and affidavits of respondents 4 to 12 were received by him annexing thereto a copy of the letter of the State Government addressed to the District Magistrate directing him to treat respondent nos. 4 to 12 as members of the Board. The petitioner also filed a supplementary affidavit annexing thereto an affidavit of Ghanshyam Singh Tyagi, Vice-President of the Municipal Board, Hapur, wherein he stated that the resignation letters of respondent nos. 4 to 12 were actually written and signed by them at his residence in his presence. The originals of the affidavits filed before the District Magistrate by respondent nos. 4 to 12 and the original notice of motion of non-confidence signed by fifteen members including respondent nos. 4 to 12 and the motion of non-confidence signed by them presented to the District Magistrate on 9th August, 1972, were also produced before us by the learned Standing Counsel. In addition to these, the original letters of resignation which were received by the District Magistrate purporting to have been signed by respondent nos. 4 to 12 were also produced before us. The learned counsel for the petitioner was alleged to inspect the said documents. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the petitioner produced a register of the Municipal Board purporting to be the register of attendance of the members which contained signatures of the members of the Board including those of respondent nos. 4 to 12. This register was however taken back by the petitioner after we compared the relevant signatures. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the petitioner produced a register of the Municipal Board purporting to be the register of attendance of the members which contained signatures of the members of the Board including those of respondent nos. 4 to 12. This register was however taken back by the petitioner after we compared the relevant signatures. 6. Sri Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that once the letters of resignation signed by respondent nos. 4 to 12 addressed to the State Government were received at the office of the District Magistrate, the seat of the said members became vacant by operation of law. Hence the action of the State Government and the District Magistrate in treating respondents 4 to 12 members and in not declaring their seat as vacant was illegal. It was further contended that the resignation letters contained the signatures of respondent nos. 4 to 12 and the State Government acted arbitrarily in coming to the conclusion that the same did not contain their signature. In any case the learned counsel made a prayer before us that we should ourselves get the same examined from a Government Handwriting Expert to ascertain the truth and in case it was found that the resignation letters had been signed by respondent nos. 4 to 12 the motion of non-confidence was liable to be quashed as in that event it could not be said to have been passed by more than half of the members of the Board. 7. Sec. 39 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, runs as under : "Resignation of members - If a member of a Board other than the President resigns by writing under his hand addressed to the State Government his seat shall thereupon become vacant. The resignation shall be delivered at the office of the District Magistrate of the district, in which the municipality is situate, who shall forthwith inform the President and shall forward the resignation to the State Government." The above provision means that if a member of the Board sends a letter of resignation in writing under his hand to the State Government, his seat shall thereupon become vacant. The resignation letter is required to be delivered in the office of the District Magistrate who is required to inform the President and forward the resignation to the State Government. The resignation letter is required to be delivered in the office of the District Magistrate who is required to inform the President and forward the resignation to the State Government. Sec. 39 requires that the letter of resignation must be written in the band of that member concerned and it must be addressed to the State Government and thereupon the seat of such member shall become vacant. The legislature requires that such resignation letter should be sent to the State Government through the District Magistrate. The first part of the section lays down that if a member resigns by writing under his hand addressed to the State Government, his seat shall become vacant. It does not specifically lay down as to from what date the seat shall become vacant :-whether on the date of sending the resignation or from the date when it is received by the State Government or from the date when a declaration to that effect is made by the State Government or from the date of its delivery in the office of the District Magistrate. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the purpose for which Sec. 39 has been enacted it is clear that if a resignation letter written under his own hand by a member of the Board addressed to the State Government is delivered to the District Magistrate, who forwards the same to the State Government, the seat of such a member shall become vacant. On the resignation of a member there is vacancy in his seat and such a vacancy is to be declared and notified for the purpose of holding bye-election. The District Magistrate is required to issue the necessary notification under Secs. 13-H and 13-I of the Act. But in a case where the State Government is satisfied that the resignation letter was not sent to it by the member concerned or that it did not contain his signatures, or that the resignation was obtained by fraud or undue influence and the same was not signed or sent by free will, consent or volition of the member concerned, the consequences contemplated. under Sec. 39 cannot ensue. The legislature intended that the resignation must be written by the member in his hand and it must be bona fide and genuine resignation given by him with a free will. Only then the seat could be vacant. under Sec. 39 cannot ensue. The legislature intended that the resignation must be written by the member in his hand and it must be bona fide and genuine resignation given by him with a free will. Only then the seat could be vacant. The District Magistrate and the State Government in our opinion, are not required to act in a mechanical manner without applying their mind or satisfying themselves about the genuineness of the resignation letter. If that were not so, any faked letter of resignation sent by any interested person other than the member concerned may entail serious consequences which is bound to create chaos and confusion in the municipal administration. It is true that Sec. 39 does not expressly require holding of any enquiry by the District Magistrate or by the State Government nor it lays down any procedure for the same, in our opinion, however an implied duty is cast on the District Magistrate and the State Government to satisfy themselves as to whether the resignation letters had been written under their hand by the members and had been signed and sent by them with a free will. If they are satisfied that the resignation letters were not sent, written or signed by the members concerned or that the resignation was obtained by force or fraud, the same could be ignored by them, and thereupon the consequences contemplated by Sec. 39 could not ensue. 8. Sri Shanti Bhushan strenuously urged that once a letter of resignation was sent by a member of the Municipal Board, the same could not be withdrawn and the authority concerned, namely, the State Government had no choice but to act upon the same. He placed reliance on the case of Shamsuddin v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 Raj 53 and a passage from Halsbury's laws of England quoted in that case. In the case of Shamsuddin, it was held that a member who resigned from the membership of the Municipal Board had no authority to withdraw the same and the State Government was justified in accepting the resignation and acting thereon. In that case Shamsuddin, a member of the Nagpur Municipal Board has sent his resignation letter to the Collector which was forwarded by him to the State Government on 12th June, 1951. In that case Shamsuddin, a member of the Nagpur Municipal Board has sent his resignation letter to the Collector which was forwarded by him to the State Government on 12th June, 1951. Shamsuddin, however, changed his mind and sent another letter withdrawing Its resignation, but the State Government by its order dated 23rd June, 1951, accepted the resignation and did not attach any weight to the letter of Shamsuddin withdrawing the resignation letter. It was in these circumstances that the Rajasthan High Court held that that order of the State Government was valid and it refusal to issue a writ quashing the order of the State Government at the instance of Shamsuddin who had resigned from the membership. It is clear that in the case of Shamsuddin the genuineness of the letter of resignation was not questioned. In fact Shamsuddin himself admitted to have sent the letter of resignation, while in the present case the facts are quite different. The case of Shamsuddin, therefore, does not help the petitioner's contention. 9. Article 190 of the Constitution lays down that if a member of a House of Legislature of a State resigns his seat by writing in his hand addressed to the Speaker or the Chairman as the case may be his seat shall thereupon become vacant. The requirements of clause (3) (b) of Article 190 of the Constitution are similar to those contained in Sec. 39 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. A member of the Legislature is required to resign his seat by writing under his own hand and if that letter of resignation is addressed to the Speaker or Chairman his seat thereupon becomes vacant by operation of law. The provisions of clause (3) (b) of Article 190 do not require holding of any enquiry by the Speaker or the Chairman. In Thankamma v. Hon'ble Speaker, Legislative Assembly, AIR 1952 Tra. Co. 166 a question arose as to whether in the absence of any provision for holding an enquiry about the genuineness of a resignation letter the Speaker had any duty to enquire into the genuineness of the resignation letter sent to him and signed by a member of the Legislative Assembly. Co. 166 a question arose as to whether in the absence of any provision for holding an enquiry about the genuineness of a resignation letter the Speaker had any duty to enquire into the genuineness of the resignation letter sent to him and signed by a member of the Legislative Assembly. The facts of that case were that the petitioner in that case had signed a letter of resignation addressed to the Speaker and had handed over the same to one of her friends with a clear understanding that the same was not to be forwarded to the Speaker but the same was to be returned back to her later on. The letter of resignation was however sent to the Speaker against the wishes of the petitioner in that case. Whereupon the Speaker dedared the seat of the petitioner vacant and ignored the petitioner's contention that she had never intended to resign her seat and that the resignation letter had been sent to the Speaker against her wishes. On the declaration of the vacancy in the seat the petitioner Thankamma filed a writ petition before the Travancore Cochin High Court. The High Court repelling the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that under Article 190 (3) the Speaker was under no duly to hold any enquiry or to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the resignation and the mere fact that the resignation letter was received by the Speaker was sufficient to declare the seat vacant, held : "Article 190 (3) provides, that if a Member of the House of the Legislature of a State resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker or the Chairman as the case may be, his seat shall thereupon become vacant. This provision necessarily indicates that the letter of resignation proceed from the Member and that the resignation must relate to a membership held by the person who sends the same. The mere receipt by the Speaker of a letter of resignation purporting to be from a member will not cause that member's seat to become vacant. It is open to the Hon'ble Speaker to enquire whether that is genuine letter or a forged letter or one obtained by fraud or force is only a void document. The position taken that the Hon'ble Speaker has no right to enquire into any matter relating to resignation cannot, therefore, be sustained. It is open to the Hon'ble Speaker to enquire whether that is genuine letter or a forged letter or one obtained by fraud or force is only a void document. The position taken that the Hon'ble Speaker has no right to enquire into any matter relating to resignation cannot, therefore, be sustained. What is contemplated in the section is a resignation with the full consent of the writer of his or her own volition and not any letter of resignation." On a consideration of the evidence on record it was held by the High Court in that case that although the petitioner had signed the letter of resignation, the same had not been sent by her to the Speaker and the letter of resignation was not intended to be one resigning the petitioner's seat at the time when that letter was signed by her. The interpretation place by Travancore Cochin High Court on Article 190(3) of the Constitution was followed by our High Court in Surat Singh Yadav v. Sudama Prasad Goswami, AIR 1956 Allahabad 156. We are in respectful agreement with the law laid down in the case of Thankamma. It is true that in the present case the facts are different but the law laid down in that case fully applies to the present case. Sec. 39 of the Act no doubt does not provide for holding any enquiry or for passing any order of acceptance but as already discussed the State Government is under a duty to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the resignation letters and for that purpose it may hold inquiry for its own satisfaction. 10. In the present case all the nine members whose resignation letters had been received by the District Magistrate and which had been forwarded to the State Government appeared before the District Magistrate and they filed their affidavits denying the sending of any such resignation letters. The State Government considered their affidavits and came to the conclusion that they had not sent the resignation letters; therefore their seats could not be treated vacant. In our opinion, the State Government was fully justified in coming to that conclusion on the material before it. The decision of the State Government can by no stretch of logic or reason be held arbitrary or illegal. 11. In our opinion, the State Government was fully justified in coming to that conclusion on the material before it. The decision of the State Government can by no stretch of logic or reason be held arbitrary or illegal. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that we should hold an enquiry into the genuineness of the resignation letter and for that purpose he requested us to send the disputed resignation letters to some Handwriting Expert for comparing the same with the admitted signatures of respondent nos. 4 to 12 so that the petitioner's contention that the resignation letters had been signed by respondent nos. 4 to 12 themselves and that they ceased to be members of the Board in the eye of law could be determined. We have considered the question carefully but we find ourselves unable to accept the petitioner's contention. 12. We have ourselves compared the alleged signatures of respondent Nos. 1 to 12 on the resignation letters with the admitted signatures on the notice of motion of non-confidence and also on the notion of non-confidence and their signatures contained on the affidavits filed before us. On a perusal of these signatures we are satisfied that the resignation letters which were received by the District Magistrate on 22nd and 23rd August, 1972, did not contain the genuine signatures of respondent Nos. 4 to 12. A careful examination of the disputed and the admitted signatures of the respondents shows that the disputed signatures were forged by some person who was acquainted with the signatures of respondent nos. 4 to 12 but the forgerer, as very often happens, failed to achieve his purpose. There is marked difference in the manner of writing, the space in the different letter in the signatures, the twist and turn given to various letters. The signatures on the resignation letters are quite different from those of the admitted signatures. We do not consider it necessary to give detailed reasons for coming to this conclusion. Suffice it to say that in the case of Magan Lal, respondent No. 11, the admitted signatures, as we find in the affidavit filed before us and in the notice of motion of non-confidence and the motion of non-confidence presented before the District Magistrate is in two parts "Magan" and "Lal" while the signature contained on the disputed letter of resignation is in one continuation "Maganlal". Similarly Khuswant Rai has all along signed in English on the notice of motion of non-confidence, on the motion of non-confidence as well as on the affidavit filed before the District Magistrate, and on the affidavit filed before us, while the letter of resignation dated 5th August, 1972, contains his signature in Hindi Devnagri script. A perusal of the disputed Signatures of Chokhey Lal on the resignation letter dated 8th August, 1972, shows that the signatures were made by a person well proficient in Urdu with a set hand while the admitted signatures of Chokhey Lal on the notice of motion of non-confidence and the motion of non-confidence and in the affidavit filed before the District Magistrate and the affidavit filed before us indicates that Chokhey Lal is not proficient writer and he has tremor in his hand which is visible in his writing. We have given these illustrations only to show that the resignation letters had not been signed by the members. 13. There are other circumstances also to support this conclusion. All the nine members respondents 4 to 12 had signed the motion of non-confidence and the notice of motion of non-confidence which was presented to the District Magistrate by Ved Prakash and Brij Mohan on 9-8-1972. Nothing has been placed before us to show that some startling event took place on account of which these members resigned en masse. If Brij Mohan had signed his resignation letter on 6th August, 1972, as the original letter shows, he was not expected in the ordinary course to have gone to the District Magistrate on 9-8-1972 to present the notice of motion of non-confidence. Admittedly, he was one of the two members who presented the notice of non-confidence motion to the District Magistrate on 9-8-1972. This circumstance indicates that Brij Mohan had not signed any resignation letter. A perusal of the resignation letters shows that all the resignation letters were typed and the same appear to have been signed on different dates, some on 4th, some on 5th and some on 8th August, 1972, while some contained no date. This circumstance indicates that Brij Mohan had not signed any resignation letter. A perusal of the resignation letters shows that all the resignation letters were typed and the same appear to have been signed on different dates, some on 4th, some on 5th and some on 8th August, 1972, while some contained no date. If it was a fact that all these members had resigned on the dates mentioned in the resignation letters, there was no reason to withhold these resignations and to send these resignation letters were sent only at a stage when the District Magistrate had taken steps on the motion of non-confidence and the meeting for consideration of the motion of non-confidence against the petitioner had been convened. The reason recorded in these letters for resigning their seats was family and domestic trouble and other reasons which also do not appear convincing. The pattern of the disputed resignation letters shows that the source from which all there resignation letters came was the same and it was the same mind which created these resignation letters. The circumstances make it clear that the resignation letters were manufactured to defeat the motion of non-confidence. It is also clear that the person or persons who forged and sent thee resignation letters was interested in the petitioner. The petitioner has not stated that the signatures were made by the respondent nos. 4 to 12 in his presence while the respondent Nos. 4 to 12 have specifically stated on oath that they had neither signed nor sent the said resignation letters. We find no reason to disbelieve or discard the affidavits filed by respondent nos. 4 to 12. We, therefore, hold that the resignation letters had not been signed or sent by them and the same were not genuine. The State Government was justified in not treating their seats vacant. 14. As regards the affidavit of Sri Ghanshyam Singh Tyagi filed before us in support of the petitioner's contention that the resignation letters had been written and signed by respondent nos. 4 to 12 in his presence at his residence, we are constrained to say that Ghanshyam Singh Tyagi has not stated the truth before us. In his affidavit, Sri Tyagi stated that due to politics of "Aya Ram Gaya Ram" the members were fed up and at a meeting at his residence respondent Nos. 4 to 12 in his presence at his residence, we are constrained to say that Ghanshyam Singh Tyagi has not stated the truth before us. In his affidavit, Sri Tyagi stated that due to politics of "Aya Ram Gaya Ram" the members were fed up and at a meeting at his residence respondent Nos. 3, 4 to 12 decided to resign en masse from the membership of the Municipal Board and according to their decision they wrote down resignation letters and signed the same in his presence at his residence. A perusal of the resignation letters would show that the same were not written in the handwriting of the members concerned. The resignation letters were typed bearing different dates and further none of the resignation letters contain the reason for the resignation as deposed by Sri Ghanshyam Singh Taygi, Sri Tyagi has made a vague statement without giving time or date of meeting at his residence. According to his testimony all the respondent nos. 4 to 12 signed the resignation letters on the same date while the original letters contain different dates. In the circumstances we hold that no reliance can be placed on the affidavit of Ghanshyam Singh Tyagi. 15. Sri Shanti Bhushan then urged that the order of the State Government was not final and that an independent judicial enquiry should be made about the genuineness of the resignation letters. As already discussed, on the evidence on record we are satisfied that the resignation letters purporting to have been signed by respondent nos. 4 to 12 were not genuine and the resignation letter did not contain their signatures. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to obtain opinion of Handwriting Expert or to hold any further enquiry. 16. We, therefore, hold that respondent nos. 4 to 12 continue to be members of the Board and they were entitled to participate in the meeting of the Board dated 11-9-1972. Their votes were rightly recorded by the Presiding Officer and the motion of non-confidence was rightly declared to have been carried. The petitioner has ceased to enjoy the confidence of the majority of members of the Board, hence he is not entitled to function in the office of the President. No other point was urged before us. 17. In the result the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The writ petition is without any force. We accordingly dismiss it. The petitioner has ceased to enjoy the confidence of the majority of members of the Board, hence he is not entitled to function in the office of the President. No other point was urged before us. 17. In the result the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The writ petition is without any force. We accordingly dismiss it. The interim order dated 14-9-1972, shall stand vacated.