Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 688 (CAL)

Mahendra Kumar Rungta v. State of West Bengal

2016-08-31

I.P.MUKERJI

body2016
JUDGMENT : On 4th August, 2016, seven councillors of Jhalda Municipality made a requisition to its Chairman under Section 18(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 to convene a special meeting. The agenda of this meeting was removal of the Chairman of the Municipality. 2. Rule 9(3)(b) of the West Bengal Municipalities (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1995 prescribes the following :- “(b) A special meeting may also be convened after giving not less than three days’ notice to the members, on a requisition containing specifically the agenda and signed by not less than one-third of the total number of Councillors of the Municipality, by- (i) the Chairman, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such requisition or, on his failure to do so, (ii) the Vice-Chairman within seven days thereafter or, on his failure to do so, or (iii) any three of the Councillors of the municipality within further seven days thereafter.” 3. Therefore, the Chairman is required to convene a meeting within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the requisition giving not less than three days’ notice of the meeting to the members. The insertion of this phrase “giving not less than three days notice to the members” implies that the words “convening a meeting” refer to the act of issuing a formal notice of the meeting only. If does not relate to the date of holding the meeting. The provision also contains a default Clause. If the Chairman does not convene the meeting within fifteen days it could have to be convened by the Vice-Chairman within seven days thereafter. If he fails any three of the councillors can call a meeting within seven days thereafter. 4. It is common ground that the Chairman did not call the meeting within fifteen days. On 24th August, 2016, the Vice-Chairman issued a notice of a special meeting to be held on 26th September, 2016 at 11.30 a.m. The time for the Chairman to call the meeting expired on or about 19th August, 2016. Therefore, it seems that the notice issued by the Vice-Chairman on 24th August, 2016 was within the further period of seven days. 5. This case is before the court because on 27th August, 2016 three councillors convened a special meeting under Rule 9 (3)(b)(iii), to be held on 30th August, 2016. 6. Mr. Therefore, it seems that the notice issued by the Vice-Chairman on 24th August, 2016 was within the further period of seven days. 5. This case is before the court because on 27th August, 2016 three councillors convened a special meeting under Rule 9 (3)(b)(iii), to be held on 30th August, 2016. 6. Mr. Bhattacharya, argues that this notice of the special meeting could not be issued by the three councillors because there was no default on the part of the Vice-Chairman in calling the meeting. Only if the Vice-Chairman defaulted, the councillors could convene a meeting, under the aforesaid provisions. 7. Mr. Mitra, appearing for the requisitionists led by Mr. Sengupta submitted that the Vice-Chairman could not have called the meeting on 26th September, 2016, more than one month from the date of the notice and much more than one and half months from the date of the requisition. The only purpose was to help the Chairman to retain his post. Learned counsel went to the extent of saying that there was a fraud on the statute. The meeting could be fixed after reasonable time and not after an inordinately long period. Hence the notice of 27th August, 2016 was justified. 8. From the facts discussed above, it is quite clear that the impugned notice by the three councillors issued on 27th August, 2016 calling a meeting on 30th August, 2016 was not valid. When the Vice-Chairman, within the time prescribed by the rules had called a meeting, no default had arisen under Rule 9(3)(b)(ii), so as to empower the councillors to call a meeting under Rule 9(3)(b)(iii). 9. Therefore, the notice dated 27th August, 2016 is hereby set aside. 10. The next question is with regard to the date of holding the meeting. There is some substance in this contention. The Division Bench judgment of this court delivered by Mr. Justice Chattopadhyay in MAT No. 2647 of 2007 with CAN No. 8122 of 2007 (Tarak Nath Singh Vs. State of West Bengal) reported in 2007(4) CHN 517 opines that the date of holding the meeting should be within reasonable time of issuance of the notice. If it is not within reasonable time, the court has the power to interfere (see paragraphs 24, 25 and 26). 11. No time for holding the meeting is specified in the rules. State of West Bengal) reported in 2007(4) CHN 517 opines that the date of holding the meeting should be within reasonable time of issuance of the notice. If it is not within reasonable time, the court has the power to interfere (see paragraphs 24, 25 and 26). 11. No time for holding the meeting is specified in the rules. The requirement of holding the meeting within reasonable time is to be implied into the rules. 12. The stipulation in the notice dated 24th August, 2016 that the meeting would be held on 26th September, 2016, after more than one month is unreasonable, in my opinion. 13. In those circumstances, the notice is held to be valid. However, the Vice-Chairman is directed to revise the date of holding the meeting, so that it is held, not latter than 15th September, 2016. 14. All the papers are before this court. 15. Affidavits were not invited. The allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted. 16. This writ application is accordingly disposed of.