ORDER Mathur, C.J. -- 1. All the aforesaid writ petitions involve common questions of law, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. For convenient disposal of all the aforesaid writ petitions, the facts given in Atul Kumar Patel v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 1722/97), are taken into consideration. 3. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that section 4,9,19,23-A, 24 and 24-A or the M.P. Nagar Palik Vidhi (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1997, may be deelared ultra-vires. 4. The petitioner is a councillor of Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur. He is vitally interested in the welfare of the people and their welfare tends to be frustrated by the impugned Act, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P/1. It is also pointed out that recently part II-A of the Constitution of India was amended and by which, Article 243 was introduced arid Part-IX provided for Panchayats and Part-IX-A provided for Municipalities. Articles 224, 243-P to 243-20 were introduced by the Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992, by which the new dimension was given to local bodies. The Local Bodies were made to become more autonomus in their governance. In persuance of this, the Government of India amended their Municipal laws in all over the country and accordingly, the State Government of Madhya Pradesh also amended Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 as also M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 by the Amending Act, 1997, which is known as M.P. Nagar Palik Vidhi (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1997 (Act No. 18 of 1997) (hereinafter referred to as the' Act of 1997). This Amendment in the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, came into force w.e.f 21.4.1997. In the present case, we are only concerned with the validity of .section 4,9,19, 23-A, 24 and 24-A of the Act of 1997. 5. Salient feature of the change in the Act is the direct election to the Mayor and removal is made by indirect method by elected councillors. The second salient feature is that the original tenure of years was made fictionally full period of 5 years as a transitional measure. That has given rise primarily to this batoh of petitions. However, that question will be dealt with at the appropriate place. 6. In order to understand the scheme of the Act, it would be relevant to high-light some of the important provisions of the Act. That has given rise primarily to this batoh of petitions. However, that question will be dealt with at the appropriate place. 6. In order to understand the scheme of the Act, it would be relevant to high-light some of the important provisions of the Act. Section deals with the composition of Municipal Corporation, which reads as under :- So 9: Composition of Municipal Corporation-(1) A Municipal Corporation shall consist of – (a) a Mayor, that is Chairperson, elected by direct election from the Municipal area. (b) Councillors elected by direct election from the wards; (c) not more than six persons having special knowledge or experience in the Municipal admistration, nominated by the State Government: Provided that only a person residing within the Municipal area and being otherwise not ineligible for election as a councillor, may be nominated: (d) Members of the House of the People and the Members of the Legislative Assembly of the State representing constituencies which comprise wholly or partly the Municipal area; (c) Members of the Council of State registered as electors within the municipal area. (2) The persons nominated under clause (c) of Sub-section (1) shall hold office during the pleasure or the State Government. (3) Persons referred to in Sub-section (1). shall be deemed to be councillors for all purposes of this Act but the persons referred to in clauses (c), (d) and (e) of Sub-section (1) shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of the Corporation. (4) If any Municipal area fails to elect a Mayor or any ward fails to elect Councillor, fresh election proceedings shall be commenced for such Municipal area or ward, as the case may be, within six months to fill the seat and until the seat is filled it shall be treated as casual vacancy; Provided that proceedings of election of Speaker, or any of the committee under the Act shall not be stayed, pending the election of such seat. The Municipal Corporation shall be headed by a Mayor i.e. he will be a Chairperson and directly elected from the Municipal area. The councillors shall be elected by the direct election from the wards. The Municipal Corporation shall be headed by a Mayor i.e. he will be a Chairperson and directly elected from the Municipal area. The councillors shall be elected by the direct election from the wards. There are six members nominated by the State having special knowledge or experience in the Municipal Administration and the members of the House of the People brought in the Assembly of the State representing constituencies which comprise wholly or partly the Municipal area. The members of the Council of State registered as electors within the Municipal area. The nominated members shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government. This is the total composition of Municipal Corporation. Section 10 deals with the determination of number and extent of wards and conduct of election. Section II deals with reservation of seats Section 11-A deals with reservation or the office of the Mayor. Section 12 deals with qualification of voters and their registration. Section 13 deals with disqualification for voters. Section 14 deals with preparation of electoral rolls and conduction of elections. Section 14-A deals with account of election expenses. Section 14-B deals with lodging of account of election expenses and Section 14-C deals with disqualification for failure to lodge account of election expenses. Section 15 deals with eligibility for voting and section 16 deals with qualification for election as Mayor or Councillor. Section 17 deals with general disqualification for becoming a councillor, which is relevant for our purposes, which reads as under:- 'So 17. Section 15 deals with eligibility for voting and section 16 deals with qualification for election as Mayor or Councillor. Section 17 deals with general disqualification for becoming a councillor, which is relevant for our purposes, which reads as under:- 'So 17. General disqualification for becoming a Councillor-(1) No person shall be a Councillor or Mayor, who-(a) (i) has been convicted of any offence, punishable under section 153-A, or section 171-B or Section 171-F, or Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (5) of section 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (No. 45 of 1860) or under the protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (No. 22 of 1955) or under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (No. 43 of 1951) or Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (No. 28 or 1961) or section 10 or section 11 of the Madhya Predesh Local Authorities (electoral Offences) Act, 1964 (No. 15 or 1964) unless a further period of six years has elapsed since his release after undergoing the sentence; (ii)has been convicted by a Court in India; (a) for an offence not falling under sub-clause (i) and sentenced to a imprisonment for period of not less than two years; or (b) for contravention of any provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Nagariya Kshetro Ke Bhoomihin Vyakti (Pattadhriti Adhikaron Ka Pradan KiyaJana) Adhiniyam, 1984(No.15 of 1984) or of any law providing fur the prevention or hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs; Unless a further period of six years has elapsed since his release after undergoing the sentence, Explanation.-- In this clause- (a) "Law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering" means any law, or any order, rule or notification having the force of law providing for – (i) the regulation of production or manufacture of any essential commodity; (ii) the control or price at which any easential commodity may be bought or sold; (iii)The regulation or requisition possession, storage, transportation, distribution, disposal, use of consumption of any essential commodity; (iv)the prohibition or the withholding from sale of any essential commodity ordinarily kept for sale; . (b) "drug" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (No. 23 of 1940); (c) "essential commodity" shall have the same meaning as assigned to in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (No. 10 of 1955); (d) "food" shall have meaning assigned to it in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (No. 37 of 1954); (a) (i) has, in proceedings for questioning the validity or regularity of an election or (nomination), have found to have been guilty of any corrupt practice, unless a period of five years has elapsed since the date of the finding of the disqualification has been removed by the State Government under Section 411; (b) has been removed from office under section 18 or 19 unless he has been relieved by Government from the disqualification arising on account of such removal from office; (bb) has been disqualified for further election or nomination as a Councillor or Mayor under Section 17 -A unless he has been relieved by the Government from such disqualification; (c) is an undischarged insolvent; (d) is of unsound mind and status so declared by a competent Court; (e) is less than twenty five years of age in case of Mayor and is less than twenty one years of age, in case of a Councillor; (f) is in the service of the Government or any local authority or is a Government Pleader; (g) has directly or indirectly by himself or his partner, any share or interest in any work being done of the Corporation or in any contract or employment with or under, or by, or on behalf of the Corporation; Explanation -- Person shall not be deemed to have incurred disqualification under this clause by reason of his – (a) receiving a Government or municipal pension; (b) having any share or interest in – (i) any lease, sale or transfer of land; (ii) any agreement for the loan of money or any security for the payment of money only; (iii)any joint stock company except as a director or managing agent or any registered co-operative society; (iv)occupying as a tenant any premises belonging to the Corporation; (h) has been dismissed from Government or municipal service on account of misconduct involving moral turpitude; (i) has any tax or dues, payable to the Corporation standing against his name for period exceeding one year; (j) has not paid the amount or charge imposed upon him under section 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Nidhi Sampariksha Adhiniyam, 1973 (No. 43 of 1973) within the time specified in Section 15 of the said Adhiniyam or (k) if he is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of election to the Legislative Assembly of the State: Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than 25 years of age, if he has attained the age of 21 years. (2) Disability from continuing as a Councillor -- If any Councillor during the term for which he has been elected or nominated -- . (a) becomes disqualified-(1) under Sub-section (1) of section 13 and his name is struck off from electoral roll under Sub-section (1-A) of that section; or (ii) under Sub-section (1) of this section; or (b) acts as a Councillor or Mayor in any matter – (i) in which he has directly or indirectly by himself or his partner, any share or interest, as is described in clause (g) or Sub-section (1); or (ii) in which he is professionally interested on behalf of a client, principal or other person; or (c) absents himself during six consecutive months from the meetings of the Corporation; or fails to pay any arrears of any kind due by him to the Corporation within three months after notice in this behalf has been served upon him; he shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3), be disabled from continuing to be Councillor or Mayor and his office shall become vacant: Provided that a disqualification under clause (a) or Sub-section (1) shall not take effect until three months have elapsed from the date of conviction, or if within that period an appeal is filed or application for revision is filed in respect of the conviction or the sentence until that appeal or application is : disposed of by the Court. (3) Power to decide whether vacancy has occurred- In every case, the authority is competent to decide whether a vacancy has occurred under this section shall be the Government. The decision may be given either on any application made by any person or suo motu until the Government decides that the vacancy has arisen, the Councillor or Mayor shall not be disabled under Sub-section (2) from continuing to be a Councillor or Mayor: Provided that no order under this Sub-section shall be passed against any councillor or Mayor without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard" Section 17-A deals with power to disqualify Ex-Mayor, Deputy Mayor etc. Section 18 deals with the election of Speaker, Section 19 deals with removal of Councillors, which is relevant for our purposes, which reads as under :- "S.19. Section 18 deals with the election of Speaker, Section 19 deals with removal of Councillors, which is relevant for our purposes, which reads as under :- "S.19. Removal of Councillors -- (1) The Divisional Commissioner may, at any time, remove any elected Councillor – (a) if his continuance as a Councillor is not, in the opinion of the Divisional Commissioner, desirable in the interest of the public or the Corporation; or (b) if the Corporation has, by a resolution supported by at least two third of the total number of Councillors; recommend that Councillor is not fit to continue as a Councillor on account of misconduct in the discharge of his duties or diagraceful conduct and should therefore be removed. (2) The Divisional Commissioner may, while ordering the removal under section 18 or this section, also order that such Councillor, shall not be eligible to become a Councillor of a Corporation for a period which shall be specified in the order and which shall not exceed five years; Provided that resolution recommending the removal of any Councillor shall be passed by the Corporation nor any such order of removal shall be passed by the Divisional Commissioner unless such Councillor has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why a recommendation should not be made for his removal or why he should not be removed from his office. (3) An appeal against the order passed under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of this section or section 18 shall lie to the State Government within 30 days of the date on which the order is conveyed to the aggrieved party, The State Government may after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard pass such order on the appeal as it may think fit. Section 19-A deals with automatic vacation of all offices on ceasing to be Councillor. Section 19-B deals with removal of Mayor or Speaker or Chairman of a Committee. Section 19-C deals with registration of Mayor and section 20 deals with duration of the Municipal Corporation, which is relevant for our purposes, which reads as under:- "S. 20. Duration of the Municipal Corporation-(1) Every Municipal Corporation unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. Section 19-C deals with registration of Mayor and section 20 deals with duration of the Municipal Corporation, which is relevant for our purposes, which reads as under:- "S. 20. Duration of the Municipal Corporation-(1) Every Municipal Corporation unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer. Explanation:-- The meeting held under Sub-section (1) of section 23 for the purpose of electing the speaker shall be deemed to be first meeting for the purpose of this Sub-section. (2) An election to constitute a Municipal Corporation shall be completed -(a) before the expiry of its duration specified in Sub-section (1); (b) before the expiration of a person of six months from the date of its dissolution: Provided that where the remainder of the period-for which the dissolved Municipal Corporation would have continued is less than six months, it shall• not be necessary to hold any election under this Section for constituting the Municipal Corporation for such period. (3) A Municipal Corporation constituted upon the dissolution of a Municipal Corporation before the expiration of its duration shall continue only for the remainder of the period for which the dissolved Municipal Corporation would have continued under Sub-section (1) had it not been so dissolved. (4) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the term of Mayor and every Councillor shall be coterminous with the term of the corporation." Section 23 deals with resignation of Speaker or Councillors and Section 23-A deals with no-confidence motion against the Speaker. Section 24 deals with no-confidence motion against the Mayor, which is relevant for our purposes, which reads as under :- "S. 24. Section 24 deals with no-confidence motion against the Mayor, which is relevant for our purposes, which reads as under :- "S. 24. No-confidence motion against Mayor-(1) A motion of no confidence may be moved against the Mayor at meeting specially convened for the purpose under Sub-section (2) and if the motion is carried by a majority of more than three fourth of the elected Councillors present and voting in the meeting and if such majority is more than two thirds of the total number of elected councillors constituting the Corporation, the copy of such motion shall be sent by the Speaker to State Government forthwith and the Mayor shall cease to hold office from a date to be notified by the State Government within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of motion and if the State Government fails to issue the notification within the stipulated time, the Mayor shall be deemed to have vacated the seat on the expiry of the said period: Provided that no such motion shall lie against the Mayor – (i) within a period of two years from the date on which the Mayor enters upon his office; . (ii) within a period of one year from the date on which previous motion of non-confidence was rejected; (iii)if the remaining period of Corporation is less than six months. (2) For the purpose of Sub-section (1), a meeting of the Corporation shall be convened and presided over by the Speaker in the following manner :- (i) the meeting shall be convened if a notice signed by not less than half of the total number of elected Councillors of the Corporation along-with a copy of the proposed no-confidence motion showing the reasons thereof is given to the Speaker. (ii) the notice of such a meeting specifying the date, time and place shall be dispatched to the Mayor and every Councillor ten clear days before the meeting. (iii)that no-confidence motion moved under this section shall be decided through secret ballot." Section 25 deals with powers and functions of the Mayor, which is relevant for our purposes, which reads as under :- "S. 25. (iii)that no-confidence motion moved under this section shall be decided through secret ballot." Section 25 deals with powers and functions of the Mayor, which is relevant for our purposes, which reads as under :- "S. 25. Powers and functions of the Mayor- (1) The Mayor shall – (a) have administrative control over the officers and servant of his office in duding the office of the Standing Committee and Appeal Committee; (b) exercise such powers and perform such functions as described in the Act or the Rules made there under. (2) The Mayor or in his absence the Speaker in case of epidemic, natural or unforeseen calamity may direct the execution or stoppage of any work or any act, the immediate execution or stoppage of which is necessary for the purpose or this Act: Provided that – (a) he shall not act under this Sub-section in contravention of any order of the State Government or Corporation or Standing Committee prohibiting the execution or stoppage of any particular work or act; and (b) he shall report the action taken under this Sub-section and the reasons therefore, to the Corporation at its next meeting and if the Corporation does not confirm the action of the Mayor or the Speaker, as the case may be, the matter shall be referred to the State Government and the decision of the States Government thereon shall be final, but the State Government before passing any order, which may affect any person a reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be given to such person." Section 25A. deals with remuneration and allowances to Mayor, Speaker and Councillors. Section 27 deals with meeting of the Corporation and Committees. Section 33 deals with Chairman of Meeting and section 34 deals with quorum. The Transitory Provisions of the Amending Act, 1997 which is relevant for our purpose reads as under':- "S.4. Transitory Provisions -- (1) All the Mayors and the Deputy Mayors of the Corporation and President and Vice President of the Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayat existing immediately before the commencement of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palik Vidhi (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam. The Transitory Provisions of the Amending Act, 1997 which is relevant for our purpose reads as under':- "S.4. Transitory Provisions -- (1) All the Mayors and the Deputy Mayors of the Corporation and President and Vice President of the Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayat existing immediately before the commencement of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palik Vidhi (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam. 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said Adhiniyam) shall continue to function till the expiration or the duration of the existing Corporation or the Council, as the Case may be: Provided that if a vacancy occurs due to any reason as provided in the Act, it shall be filled in accordance with the provisions of the said Adhiniyam : Provided further that the Deputy Mayor shall be designated as Speaker of the Corporation. (2) The Standing Committees and the Consultative Committees of the Corporation and the Standing Committees, and Executive committees of the Councils existing immediately before the commencement of the said Adhiniyam shall continue to function till the expiry of three months from the date of commencement of the said Adhiniyam and thereafter new committees shall be constituted for the remaining period of the Corporation or the Council, as the case may be, in accordance with the provision of the said Adhiniyam." 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Speaker is Chair-person of the Municipal Corporation and not the Mayor; therefore, the Speaker should be treated to be head of the Corporation. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is absolutely misconceived. The Chair-person of the Corporation is the Mayor because he is the Administrative Head and all the administrative functions vest in him as is apparent from the powers and functions of the Mayor. Section 25 of the Act says that Mayor shall have administrative control over the officers and servant of his office including the office of the Committees and he shall exercise such powers and perform such functions as described in the Act or the Rules there under. Sub-section (2) of section 25. says that in absence of Mayor and in certain situation, the speaker shall have the power to look into duties of the Mayor, but that is only in a given situation i.e. a contingency like epidemic natural or unforeseen calamity has taken place. Sub-section (2) of section 25. says that in absence of Mayor and in certain situation, the speaker shall have the power to look into duties of the Mayor, but that is only in a given situation i.e. a contingency like epidemic natural or unforeseen calamity has taken place. In this connection, it may be relevant to mention here that previously the office of the Deputy Mayor was created and the office of the Deputy Mayor has now been abolished and in that place, office of the Speaker has been created. The Speaker will be a Chair-person so long as he presides over the meetings of the Corporation. This new arrangement has been brought about by this Amending Act, 1997. The position of the Mayor is today in scheme of things that he is not accountable to the Councillors as they do not constitute a collegiate for election of the Mayor. The Mayor is accountable to the public at large. Therefore, the position of the Mayor is that of a Chairperson and the speaker has to playa secondary role and he is only a master of the Corporation's meetings when he is a Chairperson of those meetings. Therefore, to say that the Speaker who presides over the meetings of the Corporation, is Chairperson and not the Mayor, the contention is absolutely misconceived and without any substance. Section 9 of the Act very clearly lays down that the Municipal Corporation shall consist of a Mayor, that is Chairperson, elected by direct election from the Municipal Area. Therefore, there is no invalidity with regard to Section 9 of the Act. 8. The learned counsel next submitted that Section 19 suffers from vice of Article 14 of the Constitution as it is arbitrary that an elected representative i.e. Councillor is being sought to be removed by the Commissioner of the Division. Section 19 of the Act lays down the procedure for removal of Councillors It says that a Divisional Commissioner may, at any time, remove any elected Councillor if his continuance as a 'Councillor is not, in the opinion of the Divisional Commissioner, desirable in the interests of the public or the Corporation. That is one mode of removal of Councillor. Section 19 of the Act lays down the procedure for removal of Councillors It says that a Divisional Commissioner may, at any time, remove any elected Councillor if his continuance as a 'Councillor is not, in the opinion of the Divisional Commissioner, desirable in the interests of the public or the Corporation. That is one mode of removal of Councillor. Another mode is that at least two-third of the total number of Councillors recommend that a Councillor is not fit to continue as a Councillor on account of misconduct in the discharge of his duties and he should. therefore, be removed. But the stress of the learned counsel for the petitioner was with regard to removal of Councillor by civil servant which according to the learned counsel was against the basic feature of the Constitution that a person who is elected directly by the public is sought to be removed by civil servant. He submitted that no gudeline has been provided in Section 19 (1) (a) and it has been left to the discretion of the Divisional Commissioner whether the continuance of the Councillor is desirable in the interest of the public or the Corporation. Therefore, the learned .counsel submits that the expression 'desirable' is a very vague expression and no definite guideline has been given that in what situation the continuance' of Councillor is under-sirable so as to be removed by the Commissioner. The learned counsel submits that this confers an unbridled and unguided power to the Commissioner. Therefore, it suffers from the vice or arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is true that what is desirable and what is not desirable has not been specifically provided in Section 19 (1) (a) of the Act but desirability of continuance of the Councillor has always to be seen in the context of the public or interest of the Corporation. The paramount consideration should be whether continuation in Corporation is in public interest or not. What con duet will render him undesirable to be continued in the Corporation, cannot be listed exhaustively. However, the guiding factor is whether it would be in interest of the public to allow the entitlement to continue in the Corporation or not. The public interest has to be seen in context of Corporation. What con duet will render him undesirable to be continued in the Corporation, cannot be listed exhaustively. However, the guiding factor is whether it would be in interest of the public to allow the entitlement to continue in the Corporation or not. The public interest has to be seen in context of Corporation. In the present case, the expression 'public interest' is followed by the Corporation; therefore the public interest has to be seen in the context of the Corporation which is paramount consideration whether the incumbent has rendered himsef incapable of being member of the Corporation or not. However, section 17 lays down certain disqualification and section 17/(2) lays down disability from continuing as a Councillor after being elected. If is true that Section 17 is the general disqualifications for becoming a Councillor and section 17 (2) provides disqualifications which the incumbent incurs after becoming a member and the power for removal has been provided to the State Government. Though in this context, the State Government is an authority to exercise power of removal of the incumbent and in Section 19, power has been conferred on the Divisional Commissioner. But, at the same time, appeal has been provided in Sub-section (3) or section 19 before the State Government against that order of Divisional Commissioner. The disqualifications enumerated in Section 17 can harmoniously be read with Section 19 (1). (a). Those are the same factors which can also render the incumbent undesuirable to be continued as a member of the corporation in the' public interest. All the disabilities which have been mentioned in Section 17 are the activities of the incumbent which renders him undesirable. The order of the Commissioner rendering the incumbent undesirable is also appeal-able to the State Government. Therefore, the order passed in Section 19 (1) (a) is subject to the appeal under Section 19 (3) of the Act to the State Government. Hence, there is no prohibition of reading Section 17 with Section 19 that it could be governing factor for the Commissioner to consider the 'desirability and undesirability of the incumbent. Consequently, the appeal to the State as provided under Section 19 (3) provides a sufficient check on the power exercised by the Commissioner. Hence, there is no prohibition of reading Section 17 with Section 19 that it could be governing factor for the Commissioner to consider the 'desirability and undesirability of the incumbent. Consequently, the appeal to the State as provided under Section 19 (3) provides a sufficient check on the power exercised by the Commissioner. Therefore, reading Section 19 (1) (a), the Commissioner has to exercise his power within the scope of the guidelines provided in the Act and it cannot be said that section 19 (1) (a) is totally vague or it confers an unbridled and unguided power on the Commissioner. There is sufficient check provided in the Act by way of an appeal and the guidelines provided under Section 17 could also be the factors within which the Commissioner can exercise his discretion. The expression 'desirable' defined in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary Volume-I, means, 'worthy to be desired' "to be wished for". The expression 'public interest' has been defined in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary' Vth Edition, Volume 4 page 2090 means a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement; but that in which a class of community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal right or liabilities are affected." If read together it would appear that the Councillor who is elected by the members of the wards, they desire him to be worthy of discharging the public duties because the interest of the community as a whole is involved. Therefore, desirability of the Councillor in public interest has to be seen in context of the welfare of the Corporation because the Corporation represents public residing in the entire municipal area. Therefore, in these circumstances, desirability in public interest is an expression which is of great significance and the elected Councillor should be advancing the cause of the public and if he acts against the interest of the public then he becomes undeusirable to be contend in the public office as a Councillor. Therefore in these circumstances, it is not correct to say that the expression is vague and the elected Councillors are left to fancy and whim of the Divisional Commissioner. Therefore in these circumstances, it is not correct to say that the expression is vague and the elected Councillors are left to fancy and whim of the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner has to exercise his discretion keeping in view the guidelines provided in the Act, that the incumbent has rendered himself unworthy of discharging the duty and functions of the Corporation. As such, we are of the opinion that Section 19 (1) (a) does not suffer from vagueness and is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, learned counsel has invited our attention to various decisions with regard to the public interest of removing the incumbent from service. We need not to refer to those decisions because the expression 'public interest' has to be inter prated in the statute in which it appears because it has taken its colour and content from the statute where it appears. The public interest will vary from the statute to statute and in service matter, it has to be considered in the context of continuance of the incumbent in service and in case of councillor, it has to be seen in the context of the interest of the Cooperation. Therefore, we need not to 'burden this decision with reference to those decisions cited by the learned counsel. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that removal of a Mayor, Speaker or Chairman of a Commities under Section 19- B also suffers from vagueness without there being any guidelines. Section 19- B is not a new provision. Earlier also under the old Act, a similar provision existed where the Municipal Council, President or Councillors could be removed by the State, if the incumbent rendered himself undesirable in the public interest or in the interest of the Corporation. Therefore, conferring a power on the State for removal of the Mayor, Chairman or Speaker doe:, not suffer from vice of any arbitrariness as sufficient guidelines are already provided in the Act and the same argument will be applicable as is applicable to Section 19 (1) (a) of the Act. But there is an additional factor here that a power has been conferred on the State Government i.e. on the highest authority and it is not thinkable that highest authority will exercise the power without keeping in view the guiding factor, i.e. desirable in public interest. But there is an additional factor here that a power has been conferred on the State Government i.e. on the highest authority and it is not thinkable that highest authority will exercise the power without keeping in view the guiding factor, i.e. desirable in public interest. The expression 'desirable' in public interest as explained above will be sufficient guideline for the State to exercise power while removing the Mayor, Speaker or Chairman of Committee and as such this power does not suffer from any vice of vagueness or of being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. The learned counsel next submitted that the Mayer is directly elected and he is being sought to be removed by an indirect method. That is not proper. Therefore, the provision for bringing no-confidence motion against the Mayor under Section 24 by Councillor should he struck-down. Suffice it to say that similar question came up before Hon. Supreme Court in' case of Kibita Hatton v. Zachihu AIR 1995 SC 412 where similar provision came up for challenge and the same was found by their Lordships to be valid and the contention was overruled. Similar question in the context of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam came up before this Court in an identical situation. Pradhan (Sarpanch), who is now directly elected, was sought to be removed by the elected Panch as and this provision was challenged before this Court and this Court also negatived that challenge in Jagdish Prasad Bhunjwa v. State of M.P. 1996 JLJ 335 = AIR 1997 MP 184 and observed in para 14 of the Judgment, which reads as unders :- "Para 14: The next question ,is that whether such provision of removal by no-confidence by the elected Panchas can be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any such arbitrariness violating of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This is within the domain of the State Legislature to provide the method of the election of Sarpanch and Upsarpanch and their removal. It may be relevant to mention here that this method of removal by way of no-confidence cannot be compared within the removal of S. 40 of the Act by way of misconduct. Learned counsel has also referred to Ss. It may be relevant to mention here that this method of removal by way of no-confidence cannot be compared within the removal of S. 40 of the Act by way of misconduct. Learned counsel has also referred to Ss. 36 and 40 of the Act which lay down disqualification, but they are totally different area where we cannot confuse with the removal of the Sarpanch and with the removal of Sarpanch and Upsarpanch by way of no-confidence. Therefore, reference of these provisions in the present context is misconceived. It was also canvassed that there is only one method of removal i.e. under S. 40 of the Act. This is also misconceived because that removal is on account of misconduct. It is true that tenure of Sarpanch is fixed for a period of five years but that period of five years can be curtailed by passing of a no-confidence motion. Simply because a Sarpanch has been elected for a period of five years that does not mean that he cannot be removed by motion of no-confidence. It is always •open to cut short his tenure if the motion of no-confidence is passed. Therefore, the only question is whether the provisions of S. 21 providing vote of no-confidence by elected Panchas can cut short the tenure of the Sarpanch who is directly elected by the Gram Sabha for a period of five years. This is for State Legislature to provide that what should be the proper method for removal of a Sarpanch. Simply because, an indirect method has been provided by the State Legislature, it cannot be said that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is for the State Legislature to consider whether the Sarpanch who is directly elected should be removed by the elected Panchas i.e. by indirect method. It cannot be said that this method is bad or illegal as all the Panchas are also elected by the Gram Sabha only and they are supposed to represent the will of the voters of the Gram Sabha. Therefore, it cannot be said that such method is bad or arbitrary so as to strike down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In this connection, a reference may be made to a recent decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Mohanlal Tripathi v. Distt. Magistrate. Therefore, it cannot be said that such method is bad or arbitrary so as to strike down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In this connection, a reference may be made to a recent decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Mohanlal Tripathi v. Distt. Magistrate. Rae Bareilly AIR 1993 SC 2042 where some what similar question came up for consideration in the context of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act and in that context, their Lordships held that removal of President by vote of no-confidence. This power vested in Board. President whether elected by electors or indirectly by Board is immaterial. In that context, their Lordships in para 5 of the judgment, observed: "The Board is thus visualised as a body entrusted with responsibility, to keep a watch on the President whether elected by it or the electorate. Any arbitrary functioning by the President or disregard of provision of the Statute or acting contrary to the interest of electorate could be known to the Board only. Therefore, it was not only proper but necessary to empower the Board to take action, if necessary. In fact the power of the Board to remove a President by vote of no-confidence under section S. 7 A and right of the President to recommend its super session under Section 47 A (1) (a) are a check on each other's functioning. Comparison with the provisions in Panchayat Raj Act where a Pradhan is removable by the Gram Sabha was odious as a Gram Sabha is a very small body as compared to Municipality. The provision consequently cannot be held to be bad either because the Board is a smaller or different body. Nor it can be characterised as irrational or arbitrary. It would be unrealistic to say so. Any challenge founded on violation of democratic norm thus cannot be accepted." Therefore, their Lordships of course upheld the indirect method of removal of the President of the Municipality by the members of the Municipality. Though a distinction as was made so far as the Gram Sabha is concerned, the justification given was that it is a smaller body of voters as compared to the Municipality. But nonetheless the method of indirect removal of the President by the Board has been found to be not anti-democratic. Though a distinction as was made so far as the Gram Sabha is concerned, the justification given was that it is a smaller body of voters as compared to the Municipality. But nonetheless the method of indirect removal of the President by the Board has been found to be not anti-democratic. On the basis of the same reason, it can be said that this indirect method of removal as contemplated under Sec. 21 of the Act by removing the Sarpanch by vote of no-confidence cannot be said to be anti-democratic and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, before, parting with this case, we would like to observe that matter needs to be examined by the competant body because it is more democrate to get the ratification of the no-confidence motion passed by the elected Sarpanch by the Gram Sabha. Hence, as a result of above discussions, we do not find any merit in this petitions and also in the connected petitions. Hence, this petition and the connected petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs." Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel is totally bereft of any substance and the same is overruled. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that section 23A providing for a no-confidence motion against the speaker and Section 24 against the Mayor, both, provide for a majority which it is impossible to obtain thus, making the motion almost impossible of being carried. Section 23A provides that a motion of no-confidence may be moved specially convened for the purpose under sub-section (2) thereof and if it is carried by a majority of 2/3rd of the elected Councillors present and voting and if such majority is more than half the total number of elected Councillors, the office of the speaker shall be deemed to have fallen vacant forthwith. The majority under Sec. 24 for carrying a no-confidence motion against the Mayor is 3/4th of the elected councillors present and voting in the meeting and, at the same time, it should be more than 2/3rd of the elected Councillors. This, according to the learned counsel, is quite impossible to achieve making removal of the Mayor quite difficult. The majority under Sec. 24 for carrying a no-confidence motion against the Mayor is 3/4th of the elected councillors present and voting in the meeting and, at the same time, it should be more than 2/3rd of the elected Councillors. This, according to the learned counsel, is quite impossible to achieve making removal of the Mayor quite difficult. Learned counsel has further submitted that given after a no-confidence motion is successfully carried against the Mayor, he does not vacate his seat as in the case of the speaker but a copy of the motion is required to be sent by the speaker to the State Government and the Mayor ceases to hold his office only on the date to be notified by the State Government within a period of IS days from the date of receipt of motion and if the State Government fails to issue the notification within the stipulated time, the Mayor shall be deemed to have vacated the seat on expiry of 15 days. Therefore, die learned counsel submits that it has become very difficult to carry a majority of more than half of the total number of elected Councillors of the Corporation to put' forth a' motion for ouster of the Mayor. Learned counsel further submits that by allowing such candidate to continue for 15 days is also bad because it will give a licence to the Mayor to misuse his position during 15 days. It should be kept in mind that looking to the present day condition, it is not possible to hold direct election of the Mayor so easily. Holding frequent election is a heavy burden on State Exchequer. Therefore, it is necessary to have a stringent provision that an incumbent, who has been directly elected by public, should not be easily removed otherwise it will become mockery of the democracy. In democracy, the incumbent, who is elected, should have a tenure to work effectively and if he is to be removed by easy method then it will be impossible for him to work as a Mayor effectively and objectively. Therefore, a tenure of 5 years bas been provided and the motion of no-confidence has been made a difficult proposition so that it would not be easy to remove a directly elected Mayor at the whims and fancy of the. Councillors. Therefore, a tenure of 5 years bas been provided and the motion of no-confidence has been made a difficult proposition so that it would not be easy to remove a directly elected Mayor at the whims and fancy of the. Councillors. The provision has been made stringent to see that the Councillors cannot make a Mayor as a katputli (puppet) in their hands. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Sections 23A and 24 do not suffer from vice of any illegality or violate - Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Legislature in its wisdon have realised the situation of the falling standards in the country and secured the position of the Mayor and the Speaker that be should not become a tool in the hands of the Councillors that they can remove him by ganging up against him. This will provide rather more security to the Mayor and opportunity to him to function effectively for the welfare of the people as he will not be at the welfare of the elected Councillors, to be removed so easily. The learned counsel submitted that permitting the incumbent to continue for a period of 15 days after having suffered a no-confidence motion will permit him total abuse of power. By giving 15 days time, it does not mean that the incumbent will be given a licence to misuse his office. It is not unlikely that in some cases certain mistake is apparent; therefore, he has still a remedy before the State Government under Section 421 of the Act which gives the State Government a power to see that if resolution which has been passed by the Corporation, is not in accordance with law, then remedial measures can be taken therefore, 15 days time is not unreasonable. There is another aspect of the matter that according to Section 22, the State Government has to notify the election of Mayor and Councillors by issuing notification and for that also, it will take a little time for the State Government to issue notification as on receiving intimation, the State Government will be required to issue notification, therefore, some breathing time has been provided as no Corporation can remain without head. But a rider has already been put that in case, the State Government does not notify it within 15 days time then after expiry of 15 days, the incumbent shall cease to hold the office. Therefore, providing 15 days breathing time is not so as obnoxious so as render the provision ultra-vires. 12. Learned counsel submitted that section of the Amending Act, 1997, is totally ultra vires of the Act. The tenure of the Mayor by the Amending Act has been made 5 years, i.e. co-terminus with the term of the Corporation. Earlier, the tenure of the Mayor was 2 1/2 years under section 20 of the Act. But since the Act was amended and the tenure of the Mayor has been made 5 years; therefore, those Mayors who have been elected, have been allowed to continue by virtue of Section 4 of the Amending Act, 1997, that they will continue to hold the office for un-expired period of the Corporation. But this is not only for the Mayors and the Deputy Mayors but the President and the Vice-President of the Municipal Council also. This is a transitory provision and become necessary because some provisions of Municipal Corporation Act stood substituted by the Amending Act, 1997. therefore, no Mayor could have been allowed to continue if the transitory provision was not there. The learned counsel submitted that by virtue of this transitory provision section 11A provides for reservation of the office of the Mayor, will be frustrated. It is true the as per Section 11 A office of the Major should also be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in. such manner that it shall bear the same proportion as nearly as possible, as the population of each of these categories within the limits of all the Municipal Corporation in the State bears to the total population within such limits. such manner that it shall bear the same proportion as nearly as possible, as the population of each of these categories within the limits of all the Municipal Corporation in the State bears to the total population within such limits. The contention of the learned counsel is that after 2 1/2 years this exercise would have been taken and these Municipalities which are being categorised as a general ward where the candidate from general were holding the office of the Mayor, would have undergone a change and the reservation would have been made for the office of Mayor in certain Corporation for S.C. and S.T. This is true, if the original provision was allowed to continue perhaps at the end of expiry of 2 1/2 years, this change would have been possible. But since the Municipal Corporation Act has been amended and the earlier provision of tenure of 2 1/2 years ceased to exist; therefore, now only fun tenure of 5 years survives. Therefore, no Mayor could have been elected after expiry of 2 1/2 years because that would have been inconsistent with the provision of the present Act. Section 25 of the M.P. Central Clause Act also says that the provision of the repealed Act shall continue to the extent that they are not inconsistent. But, now in the changed situation, tenure of the Mayor cannot be cut to 2 1/2 years as that will be inconsistent with the new provision. Therefore, the earlier section 23 stands repealed and those Mayors, who have completed 2 1/2 years, are of necessity allowed to continue for remaining term. It is true that the argument appears to be attractive that the people have only elected the Mayor for 2 1/2 years and he is allowed to continue by legal fiction for a tenure of 5 years. If we deeply probe into the matter then if would appear that under section 23 the incumbent's tenure was 2 1/2 years, this section ceased to exist and now the full tenure under section 20 of the Act is 5 years. Therefore, the .earlier provision of continuation of the Mayor for 2 1/2 years only is inconsistent with the new provisions and as such, it was of necessity to be provided by way of transitory provision that such incumbent should be allowed to continue. Therefore, the .earlier provision of continuation of the Mayor for 2 1/2 years only is inconsistent with the new provisions and as such, it was of necessity to be provided by way of transitory provision that such incumbent should be allowed to continue. This is a legislation by way of necessity as otherwise it would have left a vaccum. Thus, in order to cater for the smooth passage of new Act being introduced, such transitory provisions ate incorporated so as to avoid any vacuum or hiatus. Thus, we are of the opinion that section 4 of the Amending Act does not suffer from vice of any arbitrariness. The purpose of Transitional 'Provision is as observed by justice G.P. Singh in the Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Sixth Edition, 1996, at Page 155, which reads as under :-- One feature of a transitional provision is that its operation is expected to be temporary, in that it becomes spent when all the past circumstances with which it is designed to deal have been dealt with although it may be envisaged that could take a considerable period of time while the primary legislation continues to deal indefinitely with the new circumstances which arise after its passage. Britnell v. Secretary of State for Social Security [1991, (2) All E.R. 726 (HP) P 730]. Therefore, the purpose of this transitional provision is that till the new Act comes into operation i.e. regular election takes place in terms of the amended Act, till this time, this transitional provision will survive. Thus, we are of the opinion that the transitional provision 'under Section 4 does not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness and it is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, our attention was invited to the decision of this Court in the case of Board of Director v. State of M.P. [1990 M.P. Revenue Nirnay 253]. In that case, in some what identical situation tenure of the co-operative society which was for a period of three years extended to five years by ordinance, was hold to be valid. However, for the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that such transitional provision in legislation by way of necessity as to avoid the vacuum or .hiatus till the new Act becomes functional and as such cannot be said to be arbitrary. 13. However, for the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that such transitional provision in legislation by way of necessity as to avoid the vacuum or .hiatus till the new Act becomes functional and as such cannot be said to be arbitrary. 13. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition and also in the connected petitions. Hence, all the aforesaid writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.