JUDGMENT : Ravi S. Dhavan, J. A motion of no-confidence brought by the corporators of the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad against the Mayor in office, fixed on 6 July, 1993, was adjourned to 19 July, 1993. This petition by the Mayor of Allahabad, who was facing the motion of no confidence challenge the act of the meeting being postponed from 6 July, 1993 to the next date. 2. The petition has been virtually brought at the last minute. It came to Court yesterday, 16 July (Friday) during mid day. The meeting in question is fixed for 19 July (Monday). The Court was left with no option but to hear arguments on the petition and deliver its orders at a special sitting at 10 A.M. on Saturday, 17 July, 1993. This petition was moved before another Court which, whatever be the reasons, released the matter for assignment to another Division. The Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice marked this case to this Division Bench. 3. The issues raised in this petition are indirectly connected with the functioning of local government through elected representatives. In reality one cannot rule out the possibility of squabbles between the elected corporators on the city council nor the tussle between the political patties to edge and nudge in a vie for power. This business of politics is not the business of the Court, as long as whatever happens is in accordance with law. If in the politics of the functioning of working institutions, the law does not provide for all situation, then the Courts are obliged to interpret situations so that the system works for the purpose for which it was meant. 4. Close on heels of an earlier petition (Writ Petition No. 20802 of 1993) filed on 25 June, 1993, before the Vacation Judge, challenging a motion of no-confidence fixed for 6 July, 1993, this is the second petition. On the earlier petition, a Division Bench of this Court, comprising of, Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Sudhir Narain, J., dismissed the petition by declining to interfere with the proceedings of the motion of no-confidence. 5. After the dismissal of the petition, the motion of no confidence was scheduled for 6 July, 1993, but the proceedings at the meeting could not be transacted. The Presiding Officer postponed the meeting to another date. This another date is 19 July, 1993. 5. After the dismissal of the petition, the motion of no confidence was scheduled for 6 July, 1993, but the proceedings at the meeting could not be transacted. The Presiding Officer postponed the meeting to another date. This another date is 19 July, 1993. By the petition under consideration, the petitioner, the Nagar Pramukh of Allahabad, contends that now the motion of no-confidence cannot be brought against him and it must lapse. He submits in no uncertain terms that the proceedings for a motion of no-confidence cannot be brought against him now for another one year. In effect, he submits that as at the time when he come into office a motion of no-confidence could not be brought for a certain statutory period, the present one having failed, another motion cannot confront him until after a year. 6. To filibuster the proceedings scheduled to consider a motion of no-confidence to an adjourned date on 19 July, 1993, in this second, petition filed barely within 10 days of the order on the previous petition, several submissions have been made. The Court is dealing with each of the submissions one by one. 7. The Court has heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.C. Misra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. B.D. Upadhaya, Advocate, and Mr. J.N. Tiwari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Messrs H.S. Nigam and S.S. Nigam, seeking impleadment on behalf of one Jamuna Prasad an elected Corporator, at length. 8. The first submission was that Section 16, Sub-section (12), of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is ultra vires. It violates the principle of natural justice. This argument could have been raised in the earlier petition, but was not, and it is not that the opportunity to raise such an argument was not open to the petitioner, and the Court cannot consider it for no other reason than that it gives an impression to the Court that the attempt is no secure an ad interim order to avoid the proceedings to consider the motion of no-confidence fixed for 19 July, 1993. 9. The argument to submit that Section 16 (12) should be struck off as ultra vires, is easier said than done. 10. 9. The argument to submit that Section 16 (12) should be struck off as ultra vires, is easier said than done. 10. Sub-section (12) of Section 16, in reference to the context, does say so in as many words that “The Nagar Pramukh shall not speak on the merits of the matter not vote thereon.” Section 15-A lays down that, in the context of Section 15, there shall be a modification and the reference to the Nagar Pramukh shall be construed as a reference to the District Judge. The District Judge presides over the proceedings considering a motion of no-confidence thus, in the context of Section 16 (12), it implies that it is the District Judge who shall neither speak on the merits of the motion nor participate in the voting of it. The argument of ultra vires, in reference to Section 16 (12), is thus, misconceived and has been taken in the writ petition without reading Sections 15-A and 16 of the Act, together. 11. The next argument is that a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion of no-confidence cannot be adjourned and the act of the District Judge who presided over the last meeting on 6 July, is illegal and as a meeting cannot be adjourned, no notice of a motion of no-confidence can be brought against the petitioner as a Nagar Pramukh within the period of the stipulated bar, which is, at present, one year. The precise submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the power to adjourn the meeting under Sub-section (6) of Section 16 is confined to a situation, when a meeting did not commence at all. He reiterates that once a meeting begins and goes to vote it cannot be, postponed. The argument has been torn out of its context and made in isolation of the other, provisions of Section 16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, himself, gave an example to the Court that a meeting for a motion of no-confidence may be adjourned, if the Presiding Officer is satisfied that the members of the Corporation were prevented, without sufficient cause, from attending the meeting or a law and order situation exists in the city and prevents the conduct of the. meeting. Thus, the circumstances that a meeting may be adjourned for a reason has not been disputed. meeting. Thus, the circumstances that a meeting may be adjourned for a reason has not been disputed. The submission is that as opposed to outside it, within the House if some factor were to exist, to disrupt the resume of the proceedings, then the law has made no provision for adjourning the meeting. The law, in the context, has not spelled out circumstances for an adjourning a meeting. Section 16 does not give illustrations on the basis of which a meeting may be adjourned. But, it cannot be implied rigidly and in isolation that a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion of no-confidence, may not be adjourned, at all. In the context before the Court, the law is not so inflexible. Sub-section (8) of Section 16 clearly mentions that save as provided in subsections (5), (6) and (7), a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under that section shall not, for any reason, be adjourned. This implies that exceptions are contained in Sub-sections (5), (6) and (7). 12. Sub-section (6) of Section 16 will need to be carefully read. The first sentence is very important on the issues which have been attempted to be raised in the petition. The first sentence reads: If the Nagar Pramukh is unable to preside at the meeting, he may, after recording his, reasons, adjourn the meeting to such other date and time as he may appoint,, but;” not later than 15 days from the date appointed for the meeting under Sub-section (4).” 13. As the Court has observed earlier, there are no illustrations given in Section 16 of the circumstances in which a meeting may be postponed or adjourned. The phrase “if the Nagar Pramukh is unable to preside at the meeting” (emphasis by Court) is relevant. The words “unable to preside” are important. Simply, it casts a discretion on the presiding officer to be the best judge of the situation and the prevailing circumstances and see for himself whether the atmosphere is conducive for conducting a meeting. The beginning and the end of a meeting is a broad spectrum. The meeting must end in a result, unless it is frustrated for want of a quorum. The latter situation is not the context of the case. 14. The beginning and the end of a meeting is a broad spectrum. The meeting must end in a result, unless it is frustrated for want of a quorum. The latter situation is not the context of the case. 14. Sub-section (5) preceding Sub-section (6) also gives a circumstance when a meeting convened for considering the motion of no confidence, may stand adjourned for the simple reason that the person who has to preside over the meeting, does not present himself within half an hour from the time appointed for the meeting. Thus there cannot be an issue on the aspect that a meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion of no-confidence against the Nagar Pramukh, cannot see an adjournment. 15. Another submission was that no discussion on any motion u/s 16 shall be adjourned. The submission was made to lay emphasis on the earlier argument that a meeting called for considering a motion of no-confidence cannot be adjourned. This argument also cannot be seen in isolation. Once the stage of discussion arrives, the discussion cannot be interrupted. Sub-section (11) will need to be read together with Sub-section (10), as the latter provision reads to say that no discussion of any motion shall be adjourned. Sub-section (11) explains that the discussion, once it begins, will terminate after the expiry of three hours from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting, unless it is concluded earlier. It further explains that upon, the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of the said period of three hours, as the case may be, the motion will be put to vote of the Maha Palika. 16. Thus, it is not that a meeting may not be adjourned as it may, as provided under Sub-section (8), which in itself, says that if the circumstances enumerated in Sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) exists, then a meeting may be adjourned. Sub-section (10) discourages the interruption of a discussion on a motion of no-confidence and encourages the completion of discussion, subject to a maximum duration of three hours. 17. That a meeting for a motion of no-confidence cannot be adjourned, even for a cause, is a submission which the petitioner should be cautious in making it. Sub-section (10) discourages the interruption of a discussion on a motion of no-confidence and encourages the completion of discussion, subject to a maximum duration of three hours. 17. That a meeting for a motion of no-confidence cannot be adjourned, even for a cause, is a submission which the petitioner should be cautious in making it. In yet an earlier writ petition filed by him two years ago Shyama Charan Gupta v. Commissioner of Allahabad Division (1991) 1 UPLBEC 411, he received a verdict that a meeting for considering a motion of no-confidence, can be adjourned in given circumstances. 18. Now the record of the case. During the course of arguments, the Court directed learned Standing Counsel, present, that the original record, containing the minutes of the meeting which occasioned the adjournment on 6, July, be produced before the Court. The original record was made available to the Court. The court, in turn, permitted learned Counsel for the, petitioner to examine the record. 19. One argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the minutes of the meeting which was held on 6 July, 1993, had not been supplied to the petitioner, the Nagar Pramukh. The petitioner wrote, both to the Commissioner, Allahabad Division as well as the District Judge, seeking a copy of the minutes. He did so by his letter dated 7 July, 1993, addressed to the Commissioner, and a letter undated sent by post, addressed to the District Judge. The reply which he received from the Commissioner and the District Judge, is, to the effect, that there is no provision made in Section 16, that a copy of the minutes may be made available to him. The Commissioner intimated the petitioner that there was no obligation at his level to supply the petitioner a copy of the minutes. Between the petitioner and the Commissioner and the District Judge, all the three had polarized themselves in observing technicalities, one is seeking a copy of the minutes and the other in supplying it; In so far as the minutes are concerned they are part of public documents and if the petitioner had sought an extract of the minutes of the proceedings of 6 July, he should have been favoured with an extract of the relevant minutes. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, it is not his case that he was denied, access to the information as was contained in the minutes and rather than seeking an extract, he should have simply gone either to the District Judge or the Commissioner, and sought an inspection of the record. So between the technicalities and irrationalities on all sides, what is not important that the information was formally not made available and whereas the person who needed it, would not see it and the other who had it, would not supply it. Nothing will turn on this as the Court has given its comments on the situation. What is important is that there are minutes of the proceedings and are and were available. 20. What happened at the meeting has been narrated briefly by the petitioner in paragraph-12 of the petition as also in the minutes recorded by the District Judge on 6 July, 1993, which occasioned an adjournment. First the averment, in the petition on what happened on 6 July, 1993, when the meeting was convened to consider a motion of no-confidence. The petitioner submits that a meeting was convened. The motion was read over in the house to consider and was thrown open for discussion. The motion was put to vote but at this time there was a pandemonium in the House, resulting in fights and parleys between the rival factions. Thereafter, what the petitioner submits are legal submissions which are engaging the attention of the Court. 21. The minutes recorded by the District, Judge, Allahabad, presiding over the meeting read thus: From Sri R.N. Tiwari, District Judge, Allahabad. To The Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad. No. 54 PA-Dated Allahabad July 6, 1993 Subject: No Confidence Motion against Sri Shyama Charan Gupta, Nagar Pramukh, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. Sir, Kindly refer to your letter No. 3341/21-25 dated 25-6-93 to-preside the meeting of 'No Confidence Motion' against Sri Shyama Charan Gupta, Nagar Pramukh, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, on 6-7-93 at 11 a.m. under the provision of Section 16 of U.P. Nagar Mahapalika, Adhiniyam, 1959, U.P. Act No. 2 of 1959 amended upto date. Accordingly the meeting was presided over by me at 11 a.m. on 6-7-93. The quorum was complete. The time for discussion was given. Accordingly the meeting was presided over by me at 11 a.m. on 6-7-93. The quorum was complete. The time for discussion was given. The members who were in favour of No Confidence Motion demanded that voting should be by show of hands, while the members who were in opposition of No Confidence Motion wanted that it should be by secret ballot. There was not discussion and altercations amongst the members over this point. Several times some members rushed upto dais showing gesture and saying that you have been won over by Nagar Pramukh and you are dishonest. Some members also refused to sign the attendance sheet. I, however, after great persuasion pacified them. Any how the members agreed for secret ballot and voting was started by secret ballot. One member took the ballot paper, ticked the same and showed openly to all the members. On this several members rushed towards dais shouting and creating chaos and great noise and some began to scuffle before the dais and some of them were showing violent gesture towards me also. One of them tried to snatch the ballot papers which was any how saved. Some of them aggressively rushed towards me in violent mood using filthy and unparliamentarily language. Some of them broke the table glass. They were pressing me to take the decision what ever they wanted. In the above circumstances it was not possible for me to sit over the dais and to continue the voting in a peaceful manner. There was no option left for me but to adjourn the meeting under Sub-section (6) of Section 16 of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. Since I was unable to preside the meeting for the aforesaid reasons the meeting is adjourned for 19-7-93 at 11 a.m. 99 unused ballot papers along with one cancelled ballot paper and the envelop in which they were kept have been sent to the Sr. Treasury Officer, Allahabad, for safe custody. Report is submitted. Yours faithfully (R.N. Tiwari) District Judge, Allahabad. 22. Putting the version of the petitioner and what is recorded in the minutes, there is no issue on one aspect that the atmosphere was neither congenial nor conducive to conclude the meeting. This was not a meeting which could not proceed for want of a quorum. It is on record that the quorum was complete. 22. Putting the version of the petitioner and what is recorded in the minutes, there is no issue on one aspect that the atmosphere was neither congenial nor conducive to conclude the meeting. This was not a meeting which could not proceed for want of a quorum. It is on record that the quorum was complete. It is only a meeting in which the quorum is complete that the motion is put to discussion, followed by voting. Further, between what the petitioner contends and what is recorded in the minutes, there is no issue that the voting could not be carried. Also, there is no issue on the aspect that this is not a situation that the motion failed for want of a quorum. Impliedly, the question of granting an immunity to the petitioner that a meeting for considering a motion of no-confidence be not brought for another one year, does not arise. 23. On the details as given in the minutes recorded by the District Judge, the Court does not want to comment on the merits of the meeting except for the fact, that there was absolute confusion on the floor of the House and the atmosphere was supercharged with melee, fracas, free for all, ruckus, rumpus, scrum, tussle. The petitioner has himself appended a news paper report reporting on the resume of the proceedings. Between what the petitioner contends on the meeting, the minutes recorded by the District Judge and the report of the news papers, there is not much variation. 24. Under the law, the District Judge who has to preside over the meeting, has been left to judge whether he should adjourn the meeting to another date. The only obligation on him is that the reasons for adjourning the meeting at which he presides are to be left on record. Should the District Judge be of the opinion that the tenor, environment and the atmosphere of the meeting are such that they do not lend to conduct the meeting peaceably, then, the law has left him with the discretion to perceive the situation and to adjourn the meeting, but with an obligation that the reason for doing so would be recorded. 25. The last straw on which it was attempted to attack the adjourned meeting is that the gentleman Who presided over the meeting was not the District Judge. This argument does not hold. 25. The last straw on which it was attempted to attack the adjourned meeting is that the gentleman Who presided over the meeting was not the District Judge. This argument does not hold. Firstly, in the definition clause, Section 2(18), the expression 'District Judge' has been defined. The suggestion to the Court is that the person who presided over the meeting was an Additional District Judge. For the purposes of the Act, that is the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, even if it were, an Additional District Judged the definition says that the expression 'District Judge' includes an Additional District Judge to whom any function of the District Judge had been transferred under this Act. Even if this definition were not there, then, under The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, by virtue of Section 6, the Additional District Judge or the Subordinate Judge shall discharge the functions which devolved on him as of a District Judge. It is not the petitioner's case that there was no Additional District Judge, Incharge, at the District Judgeship of Allahabad. The argument is misconceived in law. 26. Thus, having examined the petition from all aspects and having seen the original record in the context of the adjourned meeting, in issue, this Court is satisfied that this is not a matter in which a case has been made out for the issue of writ of certiorari to quash the notice of the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, dated 25 June, 1993 or the consequential notice dated 7 July, 1993, nor a writ of mandamus to the Commissioner, Allahabad, not to hold the meeting for considering a motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. 27. The writ petition is devoid of merit and misconceived. It is, thus, dismissed. 28. As a notice of motion by a writ was not issued, there will be no Order on costs.