Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1165 (RAJ)

Shri Madan Lal Aasari v. State

2006-04-13

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2006
Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-The subject matter of both these writ petitions concerns a motion of no confidence moved against the Chairperson of Municipal Board, Deedwana stated to be considered in the adjourned meeting proposed to be held on 14.04.2006 i.e., tomorrow and, therefore, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Having heard learned Counsel Mr. Suresh Shrimali appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1925/2006 and learned Counsel Mr. Anand Purohit appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1930/2006, this Court is clearly of opinion that both these writ petitions are absolutely bereft of substance and are rather unnecessary petitions and deserve to be dismissed. 3. It is not in dispute that a motion of no confidence has been moved against the Chairperson of Municipal Board, Deedwana [the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1930/2006] by 17 members of the said Board [the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1925/2006 being one of them]. It is also not in dispute that earlier a notice under Section 72 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 and Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Municipalities [Motion of No Confidence Against Chairman or Vice Chairman] Rules, 1974, [hereinafter referred as "the Rules of 1974"] was issued convening the meeting for consideration of the said motion of no confidence on 05.04.2006, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deedwana is alleged to have been nominated by the Collector concerned to preside at such meeting; and it is not in dispute that the said meeting was not held 05.04.2006 for the reason of the said presiding officer being not available. The Collector Nagaur has issued notices on 07.04.2006 fixing 14.04.2006 as the date for holding the meeting that was adjourned on 05.04.2006, for consideration of the said motion of no confidence. 4. The Collector Nagaur has issued notices on 07.04.2006 fixing 14.04.2006 as the date for holding the meeting that was adjourned on 05.04.2006, for consideration of the said motion of no confidence. 4. The petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1925/2006, who is one of those persons who have moved the no confidence motion has submitted the writ petition with a contention that the Collector Nagaur has fixed the date of 14.04.2006 for the purpose of said meeting but the notice dated 07.04.2006, itself has been sent by way of registered post only on 08.04.2006 and in that view of the matter the petitioner has not received seven clear days notice as mandatorily required under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Rules of 1974; and, therefore, according to the petitioner, the notice being not in conformity with the requirement of law cannot be said to be a valid notice and the respondents are not justified in convening and holding the meeting on 14.04.2006. Learned Counsel Mr. Shrimali arguing for the petitioner strenuously pressed for consideration the submissions that the meeting and the procedure as provided under Rules of 1974 read with Section 72 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act are mandatory in character and seven clear days notice having not been issued there is a clear violation of the requirements of the rules particularly of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1974 and the entire proceedings are vitiated; and such meeting if held on 14.04.2006 would be an exercise in futility. Learned Counsel purported to rely on the decision of this Court in Radhey Shyam vs. Vijay Singh & Ors., 1972 WLN 772, to submit that the procedure provided by the law is mandatory and that seven clear days notice ought to be served for a valid meeting. On being questioned if the said case related to an adjourned meeting, learned Counsel answered in the negative. 5. Learned Counsel Mr. On being questioned if the said case related to an adjourned meeting, learned Counsel answered in the negative. 5. Learned Counsel Mr. Anand Purohit on the other hand pressed the submissions behalf of the Chairperson of the same Municipal Board that the members moving the said motion of no confidence are aware of the fact that the motion is not likely to be carried and, therefore, are attempting to somehow get the meetings adjourned and submitted that even earlier meeting dated 05.04.2006 was also got adjourned by the learned nominee of the Collector proceeding on leave for inexplicable reasons and the petitioner who is Chairperson of the Board is anxious that such motion of no confidence be considered at the earliest and be taken to its logical conclusion and, therefore, necessary directions are required to be issued to the authorities concerned to mandatorily hold the meeting on 14.04.2006. 6. Having given an anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, as noticed at the outset, this Court is convinced that both these writ petitions are unnecessary, futile and baseless petitions. 7. The scenario obtainable from these writ petitions is that the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1925/2006, who is one of the signatory of the motion of no confidence is interested in making submissions to the effect that meeting for consideration of said motion, moved by himself , be not held; and the reason assigned therefor is that "seven clear days notice had not been given". On the other hand, the person against whom the motion of no confidence is moved i.e., Chairperson of the Municipal Board of Deedwana, the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1930/2006, is keen to make submissions that such motion be put to consideration positively. 8. So far as the submissions made by Mr. Shrimali in Writ Petition No. 1925/2006 are concerned, the submissions are fundamentally bereft of substance for the simple reason that meeting stated to be held on 14.04.2006 is not the first meeting for consideration of the motion of no confidence as envisaged by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1974 where the Collector is required to issue and send notices by registered post providing seven clear days before the date of meeting to every member of the Board. Such stage has already gone by, inasmuch as such meeting was slated to be held on 05.04.2006 and admittedly, the same was adjourned for absence of the nominee of the Collector. The present meeting, now to be held on 14.04.2006, is obviously an adjourned meeting and is referrable to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1974 and it being an adjourned meeting, obviously the requirements of seven clear days notice are not applicable thereto. 9. Even otherwise, learned Collector has taken adequate care and has fixed the date of meeting on 14.04.2006 and issued notices on 07.04.2006. Of course the notice has been dispatched on 08.04.2006 and obviously it is not a notice of seven clear days. However, such requirements of a notice of seven days being only for the date of initial meeting fixed for consideration of the motion of no confidence, cannot be applied to the date fixed for the adjourned meeting. The writ petition submitted by the petitioner Madan Lal remains absolutely bereft of substance. It may be pointed out that it has not been the case of the petitioner that any of the member of the Municipal Board has not been notified properly in relation to the initial meeting dated 05.04.2006 nor it is the case of the petitioner that because of want of further time, any of the member of the Board has suffered any prejudice so far the date of adjourned meeting is concerned. 10. So far Writ Petition No. 1930/2006 is concerned, the petitioner seeks to make submissions that the persons moving the motion of no confidence have not been able to gather requisite strength and are, therefore, attempting to somehow get the meeting adjourned further. The petitioner has proceeded to level allegations against the authorities even to the extent that nominee of the Collector proceeded on leave on 05.04.2006 without any justified cause. There is no justification for the petitioner levelling such allegations against the nominee of the Collector for his not attending the meeting on 05.04.2006 and in the context of the proceedings and the subject matter, it is noteworthy that this petition has been submitted only on 12.04.2006, although the meeting was adjourned on 05.04.2006 and the notices for the fresh meeting were issued on 07.04.2006 which the petitioner has also admittedly received. 11. 11. The petitioner has failed to place on record any objection having been made for adjournment of meeting dated 05.04.2006 and approach to this Court only on 12.04.2006 and that too only for the relief of issuing directions to the respondents to mandatorily hold the meeting on 14.04.2006 does not seem to be justified and cannot be countenanced. There is no reason to believe only on the bald allegations of the petitioner that the authorities and particularly the Collector and his nominee would not be proceeding in accordance with law, nor the petitioner has joined any of them as party to this writ petition personally. On the contrary, the petitioner has attempted to level allegation against the Honble Minister of the Government of Rajasthan by impleading him as a party to this writ petition. Such allegations too cannot be countenanced having regard to the subject matter of this writ petition. 12. This Court is clearly of opinion that consideration of the motion of no confidence is precisely the matter to be dealt with inside the house of the Board and the petitions of the nature presented before this Court like the present ones do not seem justified. 13. Both the petitions are, therefore, dismissed summarily.