ORDER Mathur, C.J. -- 1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against the judgment dated 9.5.1997 in W.P. No. 5097 of 1996 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition and set aside the resolution dated 30.11.1996 recorded by the Nagar Panchayat carrying out the motion of no confidence against the petitioner/respondent. 2. Brief. facts which ate necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner/respondent filed a writ petition seeking quashing of proceedings dated 30.11.1996 (Ex.P-1) by which a motion of no confidence was passed against her. It was also prayed that the proceedings dated 30.11.1996 be declared as null and void. The petitioner/respondent was elected as a Sarpanch of Nagar Panchayat Semaria. Some members of the Council moved a no confidence motion against the petitioner/respondent. Meeting of no-confidence was to be held on 18.11.1996 as per the agenda dated 5.11.1996 issued by the respondent No.2. The meeting could not be convened on 18th November 1996 but it was convened on 19.11.1996. As the Chief Municipal Officer was not available, it was adjourned to 30.11.1996. The meeting was held on 30.11.1996 and motion of no-confidence was passed against the petitioner/respondent. The petitioner challenged this motion of no-confidence on the ground that the meeting which was convened was in violation of the provisions of Sections 47, 52 and 59 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short the Act). The main contention of the petitioner/respondent was that as per Section 59 of the Act. every meeting of the Council is to be presided over by the President and if the President is not available, then by the Vice-President and if there is no President or Vice-President, then such one of their member as the Councillors present may elect. shall preside over the meeting as a chairman. Since the motion of no-confidence was against the President, there fore. the President could not preside over the meeting and it could have been presided over by the Vice-President in terms of Section 59 of the Act. But the Vice-President also did not preside over the meeting and therefore, one Kedar Singh, Councillor was elected to preside over the meeting. In the meeting presided over by Kedar Singh, the motion of no-confidence was passed against the president (petitioner/respondent) The minutes of the meeting of no confidence has been placed on record as under. But the Vice-President also did not preside over the meeting and therefore, one Kedar Singh, Councillor was elected to preside over the meeting. In the meeting presided over by Kedar Singh, the motion of no-confidence was passed against the president (petitioner/respondent) The minutes of the meeting of no confidence has been placed on record as under. ** vkt fnukad 30-11-1996 dks v/;{k in ds fy, vfo’okl in gsrq ifj”kn lEesyu uxj iapk;r lHkkd{k ds le; 1 ctdj 8 feuV ij izkjaHk gqbZ ftldh v/;{krk gsrq Jh nsosanz dqekj frokjh }kjk Jh dsnkj flag dk uke izLrkfor fd;k x;k ftldk vuqeksnu Jh f’koizlkn ‘kekZ ik”kZn okMZ Ø- 11 }kjk fd;k x;k mifLFkr fuokZfpr ik”kZnksa }kjk dksbZ vkifÙk ugha dh xbZA Jherh xqykcdyh flag v/;{k ds fo#) yk;k x;k izLrko dh dk;Zokgh 1 ctdj 15 feuV ij izkjaHk dh xbZA izLrko v/;{k in ds fo#) vfo’okl izLrko ckor ifj”kn lEesyuA fu.kZ; vfo’okl ds i{k esa Jherh xqykcdyh flag ds fo#) fuEufyf[kr fuokZfpr ik”kZnksa }kjk gkFk mBkdj fo’okl ds i{k esa ernku fd;k x;kA ¼1½ Jherh —“.kk flag ¼2½ Jherh p.Mh ckbZ ¼3½ Jherh ‘kkUrh ik.Ms; ¼4½ Jh f’koizlkn ‘kekZ ¼5½ Jh yYyw izlkn ¼6½ jktkjke xqIrk ¼7½ Jh nsosUnz dqekj frokjh ¼8½ Jh Nsnhyky iztkifr ¼9½ Jh vo/k fcgkjh feJ ¼10½ Jh dsnkj flagA vfo’okl izLrko ds fo#) fuEufyf[kr ik”kZnksa us ernku fd;kA ¼1½ Jherh xqykcdyh flag ¼2½ Jherh ‘;ke ¼3½ tqYQdkj [kka ¼4½ Jh bLyke [kka ¼5½ Jh fryd flagA vfo’okl izLrko ds i{k esa 10 er ftlesa vkt dh dk;Zokgh ds v/;{k Jh dsnkj flag ik”kZn okMZ Øekad 2 dk fu.kkZ;d er Hkh lfEefyr gSA vfo’okl izLrko ds fo#) ikap ik”kZnksa us ernku fd;k A bl rjg vfo’okl izLrko dk frgkbZ cgqer ls Jherh xqykcdyh flag ds fo#) vfo’okl izLrko ikfjr gqvkA 3. Learned single Judge found that since the meeting of no-confidence was not presided over by the Vice-President who was present and available and it was presided over by third person elected by the Councillors present, therefore, covening of this meeting is in violation of Section 59 of the Act and consequently, he quashed the motion of no-confidence passed against the petitioner/respondent. Aggrieved by this, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by one Smt. Chandi Bai, who was not party before the learned single Judge in the writ petition. 4. Aggrieved by this, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by one Smt. Chandi Bai, who was not party before the learned single Judge in the writ petition. 4. It may also be relevant to mention here that when the writ petition was admitted and interim order was granted on 17.12.1996 by this Court and it was directed that the election of Nagar Panchayat be held but its result be not declared till further orders. But it appears that the result was declared on 19.12.1996 and the appellant Smt. Chandi Bai was declared elected as a President. Contempt proceedings were initiated before this Court which Came to be registered as a Contempt Petition No. 19 of 1997. The respondents therein pleaded that they did not know about the stay order passed by this Court and, therefore, they revoked the order dated 4th March, 1997. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent petitioner has taken objection that this Letters patent Appeal on behalf of the present appellant Smt. Chandi Bai is not maintainable as she was not a party before the learned single Judge. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that she is a person interested and she is a Councillor; therefore her rights are affected. Consequently, she is interested in pursuing this appeal for the benefit of entire Nagar Panchayat. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant invited our: attention to a decision of Kerala High Court given in the case of S. Govind Menon v. K. Madhvan Nair and others (AIR 1964 Kerala 235). He also invited our attention to the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Jatan Kanwar v. Golcha Properties ( AIR 1971 SC 374 ). 6. Question is whether a person who is not a party before the learned single Judge can maintain a Letters Patent Appeal or not. In some what identical situation, Kerala High Court has held that a person may not be a party to the decree or order but he may with leave prefer an appeal from such decree or order if he is either bound by the order or decree or is garnered by it or is prejudicially affected by it. In that case the court may decide in its discretion whether in such a case, leave is to be granted or not. Therefore. In that case the court may decide in its discretion whether in such a case, leave is to be granted or not. Therefore. their Lordships observed that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter as each case depends on its own facts. However, it was observed that one test in granting leave is whether he could properly have been made a party to the original proceeding in that case. However, in that case, certain observations were made against an IAS officer who was not a party. As a result, the disciplinary proceedings were started against him and he was placed under suspension. Therefore, he filed Letters Patent Appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. Their Lordships found that he could maintain the appeal. In this connection, their Lordships referred to a earlier decision of Chancery Division in the. case of Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458 as under :-- "But the words 'person aggrieved' do not really mean a man who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other order had been made. A 'person aggrieved' must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision• has been pronounced which has wrongully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something" Similar passage from Corpus Juris Secundum has also been quoted wherein it has been observed :-- "Broadly speaking, a party or person is aggrieved by a decision when, and• only when it operates directly and injuriously upon his personal, pecuniary or property rights" "In legal acceptation a party or person is aggrieved by a judgment, decree, or order, so as to be entitled to appeal.... whenever it operates prejudicially and directly upon his property or pecuniary rights or interests or upon his personal rights and only when it has such effect" In Light of this observation made in the Corpus Juris Secumdum and in the case of Sidebotham (supra), we would examine whether the present judgment of the learned single Judge prejudicially affects the right of the appellant or not. 7. 7. In the present case the appellant is elected as Councillor of the Nagar Panchayat and she is interested to see that a person who is to be elected to the office of the President should be duly elected and should have confidence of the majority. In the democracy, the rule of law is supreme, therefore a person who has majority with him alone can be entrusted the right to govern. In the present case, we are satisfied that the appellant has the legitimate right to ventilate her grievance that the petitioner/respondent has no right in law to continue. as a President as he has lost confidence of the majority of voters. Therefore, the expression 'person aggrieved' has to be given an extended meaning and specially in the present context, we are of the opinion that the appellant is a person aggrieved as she being a Councillor of the Nagar Panchayat has a right to be governed by a person who proves the majority in the house. Thus, in our view, the appellant is an aggrieved person and we accordingly overrule the objection of the respondent/petitioner and permit the appellant to prosecute this appeal though she was note party in the writ petition before the learned single Judge. 8. Having cleared the first preliminary objection, we dilate on the merits of the case. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner/respondent has lost the majority in the Nagar Panchayat, because a no-confidence moton was passed against her. Therefore, she has no right to continue to be the Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat. But the learned single Judge has taken the view that since the meeting which was convened on 30.11.1996 was not properly convened because as per Section 59 of the Act, in absence of the President, Vice President of the Nagar Panchayat has to preside over the meeting. In the present case, Vice-President Shri Zulfikar Khan was present but he did not preside over the meeting. Therefore, the meeting convened has been declared by the learned single Judge as bad being in violation of Section 59 of the Act and consequently, the motion of no-confidence passed against the petitioner/respondent was quashed. In this connection, attention of the learned single Judge was invited to a decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of MP. In this connection, attention of the learned single Judge was invited to a decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of MP. and others v. Beni Prasad Rathore and another (1995 JU 769) wherein almost in identical situation, their Lordships have come to the conclusion that when the motion of no-confidence was brought against the President, the Vice-President was present but a third person was elected to preside over the meeting and that meeting was challenged and their Lordships held that since the Vice-President was present in the meeting and he was under obligation to preside over the meeting in which the motion of no-confidence against the President was sought to be pressed and if the Vice-President had not come forward to discharge the statutory obligation and a third person was elected to preside over the meeting, then convening of that meeting shall not be construed to be illegal. Consequently, the meeting was upheld by their Lordships. The observation made by the Full Bench runs as under :-- "....... The President was absent and in any event, could not have presided over the first meeting. The Vice-President was physically present. It is not the writ petitioner's case that the Vice-President did not decline or was prepared to preside over the meeting. The fact remains that he was present at the meeting and did not preside over the meeting. It is no body's case that he was prevented from presiding over the meeting. It was as for the unanimous decision of all the Councillors present including the Vice-President, that a third appellant was elected to preside over the meeting. This would clearly mean that the Vice-President was not prepared to preside over the meeting, though physically present. This may amount to failure on his part to discharge his statutory duty, but that cannot invalidate the proceedings......" 9. In the present case, almost in identical situation as in the case of State of M.P. v. Beni Prasad Rathore (Full Bench) (supra), Zulfkar Khan, who was the Vice-President, was present in the meeting dated 30.11.1996 but notwithstanding that all the councillors present there including Zulfikar Khan permitted Kedar Singh to preside over the meeting and accordingly Shri Kedar Singh, Councillor presided over the meeting and the motion of no-confidence was passed. Therefore, the decision of Full Bench in the present case squarely covers the situation and the view taken by the learned single Judge docs not appear to be well founded. We have quoted above the proceedings of the meeting dated 30.11.1996 and no where in those proceedings, it is mentioned that Shri Zulfikar Khan was at any point of time was prevented by any person from presiding over the meeting. We directed the learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent to point out from the writ petition that Shri Zulfikar Khan was in any way prevented from presiding over the meeting. Rather in the minutes of the meeting dated. 30.11.1998, it is categorically recorded that Shri Kedar Singh was proposed by one Shri Oevendra Kumar Tiwari to preside over the meeting and the same was supported by Shri Shiv Prasad Sharma, Councillor and no councillor present in the meeting objected to this. Therefore, on the basis of this minutes of the meeting, it appears that Shri Zulfikar Khan, though present, did not choose to exercise his statutory obligation and permitted a third Councillor to preside over the meeting. In the said meeting, resolution of no-confidence was passed by ten against five. From the proceedings of the meeting, it is more than apparent that the Vice-President Shri Zulfikar Khan himself surrendered his' statutory obligation to a third person to preside over the meeting. Section 59 of the Act clearly says that in case Vice-President is not there, then one of the members as a Councillor can be elected to preside over the meeting. In the present case, since the Vice-President was not willing to preside over the meeting therefore, one of the Councillors was elected to preside over the meeting and the motion of no-confidence was passed against the respondent/petitioner. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned single Judge does not appear to be correct and it is against the ratio laid down by the Full Bench decision of this Court cited above. 10. Consequently, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge. It is open for the Nagar Panchayat to proceed in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to cost.