JUDGMENT Laxmikanta Mahapatra, Actg. C.J.:-- 1. The petitioners who are elected Councillors of Ningthoukhong Municipal Council have filed this application challenging the legality of the order passed by the Additional Secretary (MAHUD), Govt. of Manipur dated 1.3.2013 in Annexure-A/9 cancelling the meeting of No Confidence fixed for 23.2.2013. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ application are that the petitioners are the elected Councillors of Ningthoukhong Municipal Council. It is alleged by them that since the first part of 2011 the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Municipal Council have been committing financial, official and administrative irregularities causing inconvenience in functioning of the council. For the above reason, they jointly submitted no confidence motion against the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson of the Municipal Council on 1.7.2013 praying for fixing a date to hold a meeting to consider the no confidence motion. On the basis of the said motion, the Executive Officer wrote the letter to the Commissioner (MAHUD) on 8.1.2013 requesting for approval of the Government to conduct a meeting under Section 31(2) of the Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994. The Govt. did not take any step to convey its approval for holding the meeting of no confidence; as a result of which the petitioners again submitted a joint representation on 24.1.2013 before the Executive Officer requesting to convene a meeting of no confidence. On the same day, the Executive Officer again wrote a letter to the Commissioner requesting for approval. On 22.2.2013 the Addl. Secretary (MAHUD) intimated the Executive Officer conveying approval of the Government to hold special meeting for consideration of no confidence motion against the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur District was appointed to preside over the said special meeting. After receipt of the approval from the Government, the Executive Officer issued a notice on 22.2.2013 fixing the date of meeting to 5.3.2013 at 1 p.m. in the office of the Council. All the councillors were requested to remain present in the said meeting. While the matter stood thus, the Dy. Commissioner, Bishnupur District wrote the letter to the Commissioner on 25.2.2013 intimating therein that the Executive Officer had not taken his prior approval before fixing the meeting to 5.3.2013 and requested the Government to issue necessary instruction to the Executive Officer for rescheduling the meeting with his approval as he had been appointed to preside over the special meeting. Commissioner, Bishnupur District wrote the letter to the Commissioner on 25.2.2013 intimating therein that the Executive Officer had not taken his prior approval before fixing the meeting to 5.3.2013 and requested the Government to issue necessary instruction to the Executive Officer for rescheduling the meeting with his approval as he had been appointed to preside over the special meeting. On the basis of such request made by the Deputy Commissioner, the impugned order in Annexure-A/9 was issued on 01.3.2013 cancelling the meeting fixed by the Executive Officer to 5.3.2013. Challenging the said order dated 01.3.2013 cancelling the date fixed for consideration of no confidence motion, this writ application has been filed. 4. Mr. N. Kurmarjit, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners assails the impugned order on two grounds -- (i) prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner who was to preside over the meeting is not required for the purpose of fixing the date for meeting of the councillors to deliberate on the no confidence motion; (ii) the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council is competent to fix the date and venue for holding the no confidence motion. 5. The respondents, in their respective counter-affidavits, do not dispute the facts relating to the no confidence motion alleged in the writ petition. Mr. R.S. Reisang, the learned Sr. Government Advocate produced a copy of the Memorandum dated 22.10.2013 issued by the Addl. Secretary(MAHUD) in which notice has been issued to the Municipal Council under Section 205 of the Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994 to explain as to why the said Municipal Council shall not be dissolved. On the basis of the above Memorandum dated 22.10.2013, it is submitted by the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate that the writ application has become infructuous. 6. The learned counsel for the private respondents, i.e. respondent Nos- 6 and 7, referring to Section 221 of the Act, submitted that if any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the Act, the Govt. may by an order do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of removing the difficulty and accordingly in absence of any provision for deferring the date of no confidence motion, the Govt. could pass an order deferring the date under section 221 of the Act. 7. may by an order do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of removing the difficulty and accordingly in absence of any provision for deferring the date of no confidence motion, the Govt. could pass an order deferring the date under section 221 of the Act. 7. Section 31 of the Act provides that the State Government may remove by a notification in the official gazette from office the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson in pursuance of a resolution passed by a majority of the total number of Councillors and supported by a not less than 2/3 of the Councillors present and voting at the meeting specially convened for the purpose under sub-section (2) of the said Act. Sub-section (2) (ii) of Section 31 empowers the Executive Officer to issue notice of such a meeting specifying the time and place to the Councillors at least 10 days before the meeting. For convenience Section 31 of the Act is quoted below: “31.(1) The State Government may remove by a notification in the Official Gazette, from office the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson, in pursuance of a resolution passed by a majority of the total number of the Councillors and supported by not less than two third of the Councillors present and voting at a meeting specially convened for the purpose under sub-section (2). (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1) a meeting of the Panchayat or of the Council shall be held in the following manner, namely:-- (i) the meeting shall be convened by the Executive Officer on a requisition signed by not less than one-fifth of the total number of Councillors constituting the Nagar Panchayat or the Council for the time being; (ii) the notice of such a meeting specifying the time and place thereof shall be dispatched by the Executive Officer or every Councillors ten days before the meeting; (iii) the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson, as the case may be, against whom the resolution referred to in sub-section (1) is to be moved, shall not preside over the meeting; (iv) a copy of the notice shall be sent to the State Government. (3) If the office of the Chairperson becomes vacant all powers and duties of the Chairperson, may, until the election of a new Chairperson, be exercised and performed by the Vice-Chairperson. (3) If the office of the Chairperson becomes vacant all powers and duties of the Chairperson, may, until the election of a new Chairperson, be exercised and performed by the Vice-Chairperson. (4) The removal of the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson under sub-section (1) shall be effective from the date of its resolution in this regard.” 8. The Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994 has undergone several amendments and for the purpose of this case the Manipur Municipalities (Third Amendment) Act, 2005/Manipur Act No. 15 of 2005 is relevant. Section 31 of the Act was amended to the following extent as quoted below:-- “2. Amendment of section 31.-- (1) After clause (iv) of sub-section (2) of section 31 of the Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), the following new clause (v) shall be added namely:-- (v) no such meeting convened under subsection (2) shall be adjourned for any reason except on the ground of natural calamities affecting the meeting. (2) After sub-section (2), the following new sub-section (2a) shall be added namely.-- “(2a) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson or a Councillor is one of the signatories to the requisition for such meeting, the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson or the Councillor, as the case may be, shall not preside over such meeting and in such eventuality, the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district, in case of a Council or the Sub-Divisional Officer nominated by the State Government for the purpose, in case of a Nagar Panchayat, shall preside over such meeting.” 9. After sub-section (2), a new sub-section was added namely section (2a) which provides that when a motion is moved against the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson or both, they shall not preside over such meeting and in such eventuality the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district in case of a Council shall preside over such meeting. The question, therefore that comes up for consideration is whether prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner is necessary for the purpose of fixing the date, venue and time of the meeting. Undisputedly, under Section 31(2)(ii) it is the Executive Officer alone who can issue notices to the Councillors specifying the time and place of the meeting to be held. Only in case motion is moved against the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District is to preside over the meeting. Undisputedly, under Section 31(2)(ii) it is the Executive Officer alone who can issue notices to the Councillors specifying the time and place of the meeting to be held. Only in case motion is moved against the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District is to preside over the meeting. Therefore, the availability of the Deputy Commissioner on a particular date to hold the meeting is required to be ascertained before notices are issued to the Councillors by the Executive officer under section 31(2)(ii) of the Act. The amended sub-section (2a) does not provide for prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district. Therefore, the Executive Officer who is competent to issue notice for such meeting to the councillors specifying the time and place thereof has to consult the Deputy Commissioner of the district to find out a convenient date and time for the purpose of meeting which amounts to only consultation and not approval. 10. For the reasons stated above, we are in agreement with the submission of the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners that no prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District is required before issuing notices to the councillors of such meeting specifying the time and place thereof. But, at the same time consultation is required with the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of finding out his convenience while fixing the date and time of the meeting. In the impugned order the meeting has been cancelled only on the ground that prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district had not been taken and we are of the view that no prior approval is necessary and only consultation is required. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the Executive Officer to fix another date, time and place for holding the no confidence motion meet­ing in consultation with the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district as early as possible. The objection raised by the learned GA that notice has been issued under section 205 of the Act for dissolution of the Municipalities Act and accordingly writ has become infructuous is not acceptable for the reason that a proceeding under section 205 of the Act is a separate proceeding and it has got nothing to do with no confidence motion moved against the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson under Section 31 of the Act. 11. 11. With the above observations and direction, the writ application is allowed. Petition allowed.