HARI LAL ARYA v. STATE OF U P — 1976 DIGILAW 851 (ALL)

N. D. OJHA, J. The petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Town Area Committee, Pipraich, District Gorakhpur. In pursu ance of a notice of intention to make a motion of no confidence given by certain Members of the Town Area Committee the District Magis trate issued a notice dated Oct. 28, 1975 convening a meeting of the Town Area Committee for consideration of the motion of no-confi dence against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the afore said notice by instituting Writ Petition No. 11599 of 1975 in this court. The Writ Petition was allowed on July 8, 1976 on the ground that the requirements of Section 87- A of the U. P. Municipalities Act which had been extended to the Town Area Committee had not been com plied with. The learned Judges also made an observation in their Judgment dated July 8, 1976 that in the event of a proper notice of a motion of no confidence being delivered to him, if the District Ma gistrate convenes a meeting for consideration of such motion he will convene the meeting at a fixed place so that there may be no occasion for further litigation. Thereafter, another notice was given by eight members of the Town Area Committee of a motion of no confidence intended to be passed against the petitioner. The said notice having been found to be in compliance with Section 87-A of the U. P. Muni cipalities Act, the District Magistrate convened a meeting of the Town Area Committee for consideration of the motion of no-confi dence on September 14, 1976. It appears that some objection was taken by the petitioner in regard to the place of holding of the meeting. The meeting appears to have been convened to take place in the office of the Town Area Committee. The petitioner seems to have brought to the notice of the authorities concerned that the Town Area Committee did not have any fixed office. The meeting was accordingly adjourned on September 14, 1976 and the next date fixed for the meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence was September 20, 1976. At this stage it may be pointed out that the petitioner ins tituted the present Writ Petition on September 13, 1976 with the prayer that the Notice dated September 1, 1976 convening the meet ing for September 14, 1976 may be quashed. At this stage it may be pointed out that the petitioner ins tituted the present Writ Petition on September 13, 1976 with the prayer that the Notice dated September 1, 1976 convening the meet ing for September 14, 1976 may be quashed. The Writ Petition was admitted on that date and on the application for stay an order was passed to the effect that the meeting may take place but the First Additional Munsif, Gorakhpur who had been deputed to preside over the meeting would not announce the result of the voting nor would be communicated the result of the voting to the petitioner until fur ther orders of this court. We are informed that the meeting did take place on September 20, 1976 in pursuance of the interim order of this Court but the result of the voting had not been announced nor has it been communicated to the petitioner. In support of the Writ Petition the following four points have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner: - (1) That in view of the amendment in Section 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act by the Uttar Pradesh Urban Local Self Government Laws (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1976 (U. P. Ordinance no. 28 of 1976) Published in the U. P. Gazette Extra ordinary, dated September 15, 1976 a motion of non- confidence can be deemed to have been carried out only when it was passed by a majority of two thirds of the total number of members of the Board. In the instant case since there were 11 members including the President and only seven are said to have participated in the meeting held on September 20, 1976 the requirement of the amend ed Section 87-A was not fulfilled; (2) That the notice of no-confidence which purported to have been signed by eight members was indeed signed by only seven members and the signature of Beharilal one of the members was forged; (3) That no notice of the meeting was sent to Behari Lal; and (4) That the meeting which took place on September 20, 1976 was not held in the office of the Town Area as schedule but was held in the house of one Kailash Panwala. Having heard counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that there is no substance in any of the aforesaid submissions. Having heard counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that there is no substance in any of the aforesaid submissions. In regard to the first submission it would be seen that the provisions of Section 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act were extended to the Town Areas in the State of Uttar Pradesh by a notification dated May 2, 1956 a copy of that notification has been attached as annexure I to the Writ Pe tition. The said notification indeed copies out verbatim the provi sions of Section 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act. The said Noti fication leaves no manner of doubt that it is Section 87-A as it stood on May 2, 1956 which was extended to the Town Areas. The amend ment of Section 87-A which has been made by U. P. Ordinance No. 27 of 1976 aforesaid has not been shown to have been extended to the Town Areas any subsequent notification. The question is as to whether the amendment in Section 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act by the aforesaid Ordinance would automatically apply to the Town Areas also. In our opinion it would not so apply. In taking this view we find support from a decision of a Full Bench of this court in Mani Ram v. State A. I. R. 1952 All. 40 that case related to a notified Area Committee. The Provisions of Sections 180 and 185 of the U. P. Municipalities Act had been extended to the Notified Area Committee by a Notification dated June 6, 1917. The relevant provisions of the U. P. Municipa lities Act were subsequently amended by Section 15 of the U. P. Act No. II of 1919. The question arose as to whether the amended pro visions will automatically apply to the Notified Area Committee also or not. It was held that when in the Notification the Government applied the Provisions of Sections 180 and 195 to the Notifi ed Area, it applied the sections as they stood in 1917. Once the section as they stood in 1917 were applied any subsequent amend ments for the purposes of the U. P. Municipalities Act by themselves A would have no effect in the Notified Area. Once the section as they stood in 1917 were applied any subsequent amend ments for the purposes of the U. P. Municipalities Act by themselves A would have no effect in the Notified Area. The amendment in Section 87-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act by the aforesaid Act would in view of Mani Rams case (supra) have no bearing in so far as application of the said Section 87-A to the Town Areas is concerned. Coming to the second point namely that the notice of motion of no-confidence was not signed by Behari Lal; it may be pointed out that Behari Lal has filed an affidavit stating that the said notice had been signed by him. In view of this affidavit the submission made for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Moreover, even if the said notice had not been signed by Behari Lal it would not make any dif ference in as much as Section 87-A as extended to the Town Area Committee, requires such a notice to be signed by such number of members of the committee as constituted not less than one half of the total number of members of the committee. Even if the num ber of members of the committee is taken to be 11, seven members certainly constitute more than a half. If Behari Lal is excluded the notice would still be valid, having been signed by seven members the second submission made by the counsel for the petitioner also has therefore no substance. In regard to the third submission it would be relevant to refer to the counter-affidavit filed by Ramji Prasad, Town Area clerk in the Collectorate of Gorakhpur. Annexure 2 to the said counter-affi davit is a report dated September 17, 1976 addressed to the Tehsildar Sadar, in regard to the service of notice on the members about the fact that the meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence; would be held on September 20, 1976 it indicates that the notice was not only sent to all the members of the Town Area Committee but it was also served on most of them. The report further indicates that the petitioner and one Abdul Rashid read the notice but refused to sign it. In regard to Behari Lal the report was that he had gone to pil grimage and could not be met. The report further indicates that the petitioner and one Abdul Rashid read the notice but refused to sign it. In regard to Behari Lal the report was that he had gone to pil grimage and could not be met. The submission that no notice was sent of the date fixed for the meeting to Behari Lal also cannot there fore be accepted. In support of his last submission it was urged by counsel for the petitioner that the Town Area Committee did not have any fixed office. The case taken up in the counter-affidavit on the other hand is that the office of the Town Area Committee is situated in the house of Kailash Panwala. The various annexures filed to the counter-affi davit of Ramji Prasad indicate that the District Magistrate got en quiries made in this behalf presumably in view of the objection taken by the petitioner in respect of the meeting to be held on September 14, 1976 and it was revealed that the office of the Town Area Commit tee was situated in the house of Kailash Panwala; thereafter the mem bers of the committee were specifically informed that the meeting would take place in the office of the Town Area Committee which was situated in the house of Kailash Panwala. The boundaries of the house of Kailash Panwala were also given in the notice. Informa tion in this behalf was also given to the Munsif who was to preside over the meeting. Such of the members who participated in the meeting as also the Munsif did not have any difficulty in locating the office of the Town Area Committee which was situated in the house of Kailash Panwala. The plea taken by the petitioner that the meet ing which was held on September 20, 1976 was invalid on the ground that it did not take place in the office of the Town Area Committee or that it was not held at some fixed place is without any substance. The various pleas raised in support of the writ petition having failed we find no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed with costs and the order of stay order September 13, 1976 is vacated. A copy of this Judgment will be supplied to the counsel for parties within three days on payment of necessary charges. .