Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1290 (RAJ)

Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-01

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2019
JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, ACTG. J. 1. These two appeals, being Special Appeals (Writ) No. 435/2019 and 628/2019, have been filed by one Om Prakash and the State of Rajasthan assailing the judgment dated 25.02.2019 of learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by respondent/writ-petitioner Meena Jatav has been allowed and the notice/order of ‘no confidence motion’ dated 14.03.2018 for her removal from the office of the Chairperson, Municipal Board, Bayana, against her, has been quashed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent/writ-petitioner Meena Jatav was elected to the office of Chairperson, Municipal Board, Bayana, District Bharatpur. The Municipal Board, Bayana, had 25 elected members, 19 of them served notice of ‘no confidence motion’ against her, on the District Collector, Bharatpur, on 16.02.2018. The meeting to consider the ‘no confidence motion’ convened on 22.02.2018 was attended by 22 elected members and three elected members abstained. Of them, 21 elected members supported the motion and the respondent/writ-petitioner Meena Jatav was herself the lone member to oppose the motion. Thus, the ‘no confidence motion’ was passed by more than three-fourth elected members. Thereafter, fresh election to the office of Chairperson, Municipal Board, Bayana, was held on 20.04.2018. It is not in dispute that Meena Jatav also submitted her nomination papers to again contest the election to the office of Chairperson of the Municipal Board, Bayana, but later she withdrew the same. Appellant Om Prakash (in SAW No. 435/2019) was however elected as the Chairperson, Municipal Board, Bayana. 3. Learned Single Judge was persuaded the allow the writ petition vide impugned judgment by relying on a Division Bench judgment of this court dated 17.05.2018 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23845/2017 - Rajkumar Jaiswal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. This court in Rajkumar Jaiswal, supra, held that “eligible member” as defined under Rule 2(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence Against Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson) Rules, 2017 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2017) should also include the ex-officio members, i.e., Member of Parliament and/or Member of Legislative Assembly, who have the right to vote in a meeting for ‘no confidence motion’. Rule 2(1)(b) of the Rules of 2017 was therefore struck down as unconstitutional as it excludes ex-officio members. Rule 2(1)(b) of the Rules of 2017 was therefore struck down as unconstitutional as it excludes ex-officio members. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment allowed the writ petition as in his view, the ‘no confidence motion’ carried out against the respondent/writ-petitioner by excluding ex-officio members, stood vitiated. 4. Mr. Anil Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant State, submitted that the facts of the case of Rajkumar Jaiswal, supra, were entirely different. In that case, Rajkumar Jaiswal preferred the writ petition assailing the notice for ‘no confidence’ even before the ‘no confidence motion’ was carried out. In that case, the dispute pertained to ‘no confidence motion’ against the Chairperson of the Municipal Council, Dausa, which had 40 elected members. Out of 40 elected members, 31 members participated in the meeting for ‘no confidence motion’ and 30 voted in favour of the motion of no confidence. Thus the ‘no confidence motion’ was carried out by exact three-fourth majority. This court in Rajkumar Jaiswal, supra, held that had the Members of Legislative Assembly and the Members of House of People were included in the voting, then the result would have been different as the ‘no confidence motion’ was carried out by a margin of only one vote. It was also held that the judgment would apply only in cases where challenge has been made to ‘no confidence motion’ and if somebody has not challenged ‘no confidence motion’, his case would not be governed by the aforesaid judgment which according to the learned Additional Advocate General means that only such writ petitions would be entertained which were pending before the court on the date of the aforesaid judgment wherein challenge has already been made to the ‘no confidence motion’ and no fresh writ petition would be maintainable. Since in the present case, notice of ‘no confidence motion’ was not immediately challenged by the respondent/writ-petitioner, who filed the writ petition only after the ‘no confidence motion’ had already been carried out by three-fourth majority of the elected members, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Anil Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General, has relied on the judgment dated 09.01.2019 delivered by learned Single Judge at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19353/2018 - Indira Kumari Vs. 5. Mr. Anil Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General, has relied on the judgment dated 09.01.2019 delivered by learned Single Judge at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19353/2018 - Indira Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, and submitted that the learned Single Judge in that case held that the judgment of the Division Bench in Rajkumar Jaiswal, supra, has to be applied only prospectively and not retrospectively and matters, which stood concluded, cannot be reopened in cases where the ‘no confidence motion’ has been carried out prior to passing of the judgment in Rajkumar Jaiswal, supra. 6. Mr. Anil Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for Om Prakash, both submitted that the respondent/writ-petitioner suppressed the material facts from the court while filing the writ petition that fresh election to the office of the Chairperson, Municipal Board, Bayana, took place on 20.04.2018 and further that she herself submitted nomination papers to contest the fresh election, however, later she withdrew the same. Once the new elections to the office of the Chairperson of the Municipal Board, Bayana was held, such election is open to challenge only in accordance with the mandate of Article 243ZG (b) of the Constitution of India, which provides that “no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.” Section 31 of the Rajasthan Municipality Act, 2009 (for short, ‘the Act of 2009’) clearly confers the jurisdiction on the Civil Court in an electoral matter. Section 30(2) of the Act of 2009 also provides that no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2009, within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result. Since neither the writ petitioner Meena Jatav nor any one else ever challenged the fresh election held on 20.04.2018, the new elected Chairperson Om Prakash could not be moved out of the office by now annulling the ‘no confidence motion’ duly carried out against previous Chairperson. 7. Mr. Since neither the writ petitioner Meena Jatav nor any one else ever challenged the fresh election held on 20.04.2018, the new elected Chairperson Om Prakash could not be moved out of the office by now annulling the ‘no confidence motion’ duly carried out against previous Chairperson. 7. Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel, submitted that the respondent/writ-petitioner initially decided not to challenge the ‘no confidence motion’ but eventually filed the writ petition only after the judgment in Rajkumar Jaiswal, supra, was delivered by this Court. There was delay of more than 2 months and 10 days in filing the writ petition. One of the considerations which weighed with the Division Bench in allowing the writ petition of Rajkumar Jaiswal, supra, was that the ‘no confidence motion’ was carried out by exactly three-fourth members, i.e., 30 out of 40 elected members and if the ex-officio members were included, the result would have been different. But in the present case, the composition of the Municipal Board is 25 elected members, out of which 22 elected members were present and of them, 21 elected members voted in favour of the ‘no confidence motion’. Even if two ex-officio members, i.e., Member of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly, are added to overall number of 25, then also the strength of the Municipal Board would become 27 and 21 elected members would still constitute three-fourth of the total number as well. The respondent/writ-petitioner not only allowed the election of a new Chairperson to take place but participated in the process by filing nomination papers. Therefore, she would be estopped from questioning the correctness of the election by indirectly challenging the ‘no confidence motion’ passed against her. Learned counsel in support of his argument has relied on the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Smt. Savitri Vs. The State of Karnataka. 8. Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent/writ-petitioner Meena Jatav, opposed the writ petition and submitted that the question involved in the present matter is not that the ‘no confidence motion’ was carried out but is about sanctity of the proceedings of the ‘no confidence motion’. Once the Division Bench of this court in Rajkumar Jaiswal, supra, has struck down Rule 2(1)(b) of the Rules of 2017 for the reason of non-inclusion of the ex-officio members (MP/MLA) in the definition of “eligible members”, the entire proceedings of the ‘no confidence motion’ stood vitiated. Once the Division Bench of this court in Rajkumar Jaiswal, supra, has struck down Rule 2(1)(b) of the Rules of 2017 for the reason of non-inclusion of the ex-officio members (MP/MLA) in the definition of “eligible members”, the entire proceedings of the ‘no confidence motion’ stood vitiated. This was because the action of the State authorities was contrary to the mandate of Section 2(xxxvi), 2(Lxxii) and Section 6 of the Act of 2009, which provides for empowerment of municipalities in the backdrop of Article 243R of the Constitution of India. It is argued that proviso to Article 243R of the Constitution of India, excludes voting right of only ‘nominated member’ and not of the ex-officio members, viz., Member of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly, as the case may be. It is in recognition of this mandate of the Constitution that the division bench of this court in Rajkumar Jaiswal, supra, struck down Rule 2(1)(b) of the Rules of 2017 being unconstitutional. This judgment has been affirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated 31.10.2018, when it dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by one Murli Manohar, who was elected as Chairperson in the vacancy caused by removal of Rajkumar Jaiswal. The controversy is thus no more res integra. The learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in allowing the writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent contested the argument that the respondent/writ-petitioner has allowed the fresh elections to be held by not timely filing the writ petition. It is contended that even if the writ petition was filed with somewhat delay, after the division bench judgment of this Court in Rajkumar Jaiswal, the law as it existed on the date on the question decided in Rajkumar Jaiswal, supra, would be deemed to have existed also on the date when ‘no confidence motion’ was carried out. Since appellant Om Prakash was elected as Chairperson in the vacancy caused by removal of respondent/writ-petitioner due to illegally carried out ‘no confidence motion’ against her, there was no need for her to challenge the election of Om Prakash in a fresh election petition. Learned counsel in support of his case cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ritesh Tewari and Another Vs. Learned counsel in support of his case cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ritesh Tewari and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others - AIR 2010 SC 3823 and argued that the Supreme Court in that case held that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty - (2011) 3 SCC 436 . It is therefore prayed that the appeals be dismissed. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 11. In Smt. Savitri Vs. The State of Karnataka, supra, the Karnataka High Court was dealing with the case of ‘no confidence motion’ against the petitioner. The requisition for ‘no confidence motion’ was signed by 10 members but the Chief Election Officer did not issue the notices to the Member of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly, although such notices were issued to councilors and nominated members. The motion was carried out against the petitioner by 10 councilors who voted in its favour. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition before the High Court contending that despite the request made by the petitioner, no notice of meeting was issued to MLA and MP, who had right to vote and the resolution was not supported by two-third members present as according to the petitioner two-third of total members would be 12. The Karnataka High Court relying on its previous Division Bench judgment in Smt. Chandubi and Others Vs. D.C. Chitradurga and Others - Writ Petition No. 12320/1997 dated 10.12.1997 and held as under:- “There is no merit in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant that non-issuance of notice to MP and MLA and their absence in the meeting has vitiated the proceedings. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel that the term ‘councillors; has been defined under Section 2(6) of the Act as any person who is legally a member of the Municipal Council or Town Panchayat. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel that the term ‘councillors; has been defined under Section 2(6) of the Act as any person who is legally a member of the Municipal Council or Town Panchayat. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Chandubi’s case which still holds the field it is clear that for the purpose of Section 42(9) of the Act in order to quantify the total number of councillors it is only the councillors who are eligible and entitled for voting whose number has to be considered and the term ‘councillor’ referred to in Section 2(6) would only mean “legally elected member and not otherwise” and further the petitioner-appellant has not substantiated the contention as to how the proceedings of the meeting dated 23.6.2003 is materially affected by the alleged non issuance of notice to MP and MLA. When the admitted facts in the present case are considered in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Chandubi’s case referred to above, it is clear that in the meeting which was specifically convened for the purpose of considering the no confidence motion on 23.6.2003 by giving requisition in accordance with law, 11 councillors and 3 nominated members were present, the no confidence motion was supported by 10 elected councillors and therefore the resolution is passed by not less than 2/3 rd of the elected councillors who were present at the meeting on 23.6.2003 called specifically for considering the question of no confidence motion. There is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the resolution is not supported by the requisite number of not less than 2/3rd of the total number of councillors as it is clear from the order of the Division Bench of this Court that in order to quantify 2/3rd number of councillors it is only the number of councillors who are eligible and entitled for voting and present at the meeting that has to be taken into account and even assuming that the MP and MLA had also right to vote that would not affect the resolution as 2/3rd of number of members for the purpose of non confidence motion is from and out of the total number of councillors present at the meeting and not the general total number. In view of the above, it is clear that the learned Single Judge has held that the no confidence motion against the petitioner was validly passed against the petitioner in accordance with law in the meeting held on 23.6.2003 and that too with the support of not less than 2/3rd of the number of councillors as required under Section 42(9) as out of 11 councillors present in the meeting 10 councillors have voted in favour of the motion for no confidence against the petitioner and we do not find any error or illegality in the order so as to call for interference in this appeal.” 12. In M. Muniyappa and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others - ILR 1998 KAR 3989, the Karnataka High Court as also dealing with a case where ‘no confidence motion’ was carried out against Adhyakshya and Upadhyakshya of the Gram Panchayat on 10.10.1996 after due notice to them. The court noted that on the date of issue of notice, the petitioners knew that the proposed meeting convened by the Assistant Commissioner to discuss the motion was beyond the period of 30 days prescribed under the Rules. The petitioners did not immediately challenge the validity of the notice and allowed the meeting to be convened even though according to them, such meeting should have been convened within 30 days of the issue of the notice. When the meeting was convened, the motion was put to vote and was carried out against them. The Karnataka High Court, speaking through Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur (as His Lordship then was), dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioners by their conduct acquiesced in the entire process and allowed a situation to come about where not only the ‘no confidence motion’ was carried out but the democratic process envisaged under the Act has culminated in a fresh election and thrown up a new Adhyaksha, who enjoyed the support and confidence of 2/3rd of the membership of the Panchayat. The High Court held that the requirement of notice of 30 days was directory and therefore if there was delay of 3 days in holding of the meeting and instead of 6th October, the meeting was held on 10.10.1996, no prejudice was caused to the petitioners. 13. In Smt. V. Puspanjali Raju Vs. The High Court held that the requirement of notice of 30 days was directory and therefore if there was delay of 3 days in holding of the meeting and instead of 6th October, the meeting was held on 10.10.1996, no prejudice was caused to the petitioners. 13. In Smt. V. Puspanjali Raju Vs. State of Orissa, 2002 I OLR 227, the petitioner was elected Chairperson of Notified Area Council, Digapahandi in the district of Ganjam. She faced the ‘no confidence motion’ and the competent authority issued notice in that respect on 1.8.2001 and the meeting was held on 6.8.2001 in which the petitioner also participated. The ‘no confidence motion’ against the petitioner was passed by 8 of the councillors voting for it. Thereafter, a fresh election to the office of Chairperson was notified by the State Agency on 21.9.2001. The petitioner contested the election again as a candidate to the office of Chairperson. At that stage, she filed the writ petition. In those facts, the High Court held as under:- “In the case on hand, there cannot be any dispute that 8 of the 11 councillors constituting the requisite number under Section 54 of the Act forwarded the resolution to the District Magistrate seeking to move a no confidence motion against the Chairperson of the Council. Thereafter notices were issued to the Councillors including the petitioners. A meeting was held. The no confidence motion was passed. A fresh election to the office of Chairperson was notified. The petitioner has participated in the proceedings all through. In such a situation, it is clear that the petitioner cannot successfully urge that there was no substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 54 (2) of the Act. The petitioner even if is not estopped from questioning the validity of the no confidence motion, cannot be successful in her challenge since she subsequently participated in the fresh election by her own conduct she has accepted the legitimacy of the procedure adopted by the District Magistrate while dealing with the motion of no confidence.” 14. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Kamla Durga Solanki Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, - 2004 (2) MPHT 76 , considered somewhat similar case, where the petitioner did not immediately lodge any protest to the notice for ‘no confidence motion’. The ‘no confidence motion’ was carried out against her by 3/4th majority of votes. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Kamla Durga Solanki Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, - 2004 (2) MPHT 76 , considered somewhat similar case, where the petitioner did not immediately lodge any protest to the notice for ‘no confidence motion’. The ‘no confidence motion’ was carried out against her by 3/4th majority of votes. Thereafter fresh elections for the post of President were held and the appellant was elected as President. The High Court held that once elections have been held and motion of no-confidence was carried out by 3/4th majority, and in the light of respondent No. 4 Shrimati Guddi Bai’s conduct in not opposing the mode of election and raising objection after no-confidence motion was passed, proceedings of motion of no-confidence cannot be set at naught. Respondent No. 4 Shrimati Guddi Bai automatically ceased to hold the office after passing of the motion of no-confidence. 15. The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Munirathnamma Vs. The Asst. Commissioner, Kolar, AIR 2007 KAR 690, was dealing with a case where the appellant was Adhyaksha of Abbenahalli Grama Panchayat. The elected members moved the Assistant Commissioner to convey a meeting to pass resolution of no confidence against her. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice on 30.05.2006 conveying the meeting on 17.06.2006. The Court considered the provisions of Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994, and noted that though the provision requires 21 days clear notice, but in the matter in question, it was short by one day. The Division Bench found that the challenge based upon such short notice after actual passing of ‘no confidence motion’ could not have been entertained. 16. Adverting now to the present case, indisputably, 19 elected members served notice on the District Collector, Bharatpur, on 16.02.2018 proposing the vote of no confidence under Rule 3 of the Rules of 2017 against respondent/writ-petitioner Meena Jatav. The District Collector, Bharatpur, issued the notice to the respondent/writ-petitioner on 28.02.2018 fixing 14.03.2018 as the date on which meeting of the Board for considering the motion of no confidence. The appellant had sufficient time to challenge the notice on all such grounds, which she is now taking, but she failed to do so. The resolution of no confidence was carried out against the respondent/writ-petitioner on 14.03.2018. The appellant had sufficient time to challenge the notice on all such grounds, which she is now taking, but she failed to do so. The resolution of no confidence was carried out against the respondent/writ-petitioner on 14.03.2018. Thereafter when the motion of no confidence against the respondent/writ-petitioner was carried out by three-fourth majority, i.e., 21 out of 25 elected members supporting the motion, the respondent/writ-petitioner did not immediately challenge the same. She not only did not immediately challenge the said motion but allowed the fresh election to be held on 20.04.2018. In fact, the respondent/writ-petitioner filed the nomination paper but later on withdrew the same, thus signifying her participation in the process of election. She filed the writ petition with delay of 2 months and 10 days. The respondent/writ-petitioner has thereby all along acquiesced, firstly in holding of the meeting of the Board to consider the ‘no confidence motion’ against her, without notice to ex-officio members and secondly, in holding of fresh election to the office of the Chairperson. Therefore, she would be estopped by her conduct from questioning the validity of the democratic process set in as per the mandate of Section 2(xxxvi), 2(Lxxii) and Section 6 of the Act of 2009, of fresh election, in which appellant Om Prakash was elected. The fresh election to the office of the Chairperson cannot be challenged by belatedly questioning the validity of the ‘no confidence motion’ validly carried out. The law is well settled as per the mandate of Article 243ZG (b) of the Constitution of India and Section 30 and 31 of the Act of 2009, “no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.” Similarly, according to Section 30(2) of the Act of 2009, election to the office of the President could have been called in question only by way of election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Section 31 of the aforesaid Act, within a period of one month from the date of declaration of result. 17. This issue can be examined from another angle as well. Even otherwise, out of total 25 elected members of the Board, 22 members participated in the meeting for considering the ‘no confidence motion’ including the respondent/writ-petitioner herself. 17. This issue can be examined from another angle as well. Even otherwise, out of total 25 elected members of the Board, 22 members participated in the meeting for considering the ‘no confidence motion’ including the respondent/writ-petitioner herself. 21 members voted in favour of the ‘no confidence motion’. If the Member of the Legislative Assembly and the Member of the Parliament, are added to this overall 25 number, as ex-officio members, the total strength would have gone up to 27. Three-fourth members thereof, requisite for carrying out the ‘no confidence motion’, would also be 21. And 21 elected members having already voted in favour of the ‘no confidence motion’, the respondent/writ-petitioner cannot be on this technicality allowed to clinch onto the office of the Chairperson, when the three-fourth majority of the elected members have lost confidence in her, and more particularly when now all the elected members have, by democratic process, elected appellant Om Prakash unopposed, as the new Chairperson on 20.04.2018. 18. In Rajkumar Jaiswal, supra, there were total 40 elected members in the Municipal Council, Dausa. The notices were served on the elected members for ‘no confidence motion’, which was carried out by the majority of three-fourth votes. Out of 40 elected members, 31 members were present and participated in the meeting for ‘no confidence motion’. And 30 elected members did cast their votes for no confidence. Thus, the ‘no confidence motion’ was carried out by exact three-fourth majority. In those facts, the court was of the view that exclusion of ex-officio members from the proceedings of ‘no confidence motion’ had vitiated the proceedings of ‘no confidence motion’ and rightly because if two more members were added to over all tally of 40 elected members, the total strength would become 42 and three-fourth thereof, in any case, could not be less than 32, requisite for carrying out ‘no confidence motion’, which had been passed by only 31 members. Therefore addition of two ex-officio members (MP/MLA) would have made a lot of difference. The Division Bench of this Court in Rajkumar Jaiswal, supra, in those facts, therefore, observed that if they would have been included for vote, the result could have been different as the ‘no confidence motion’ was not carried by such margin so as to ignore the vote of ex-officio members. 19. The Division Bench of this Court in Rajkumar Jaiswal, supra, in those facts, therefore, observed that if they would have been included for vote, the result could have been different as the ‘no confidence motion’ was not carried by such margin so as to ignore the vote of ex-officio members. 19. In our considered view, the learned Single Judge has not correctly appreciated and applied the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Rajkumar Jaiswal, supra, which held that the judgment would apply only in the cases where challenge has been made to ‘no confidence motion’. If somebody has not challenged ‘no confidence motion’, then that would not be governed by this judgment. In the instant case, however, the respondent/writ-petitioner did not immediately challenge the ‘no confidence motion’ and allowed the situation to develop where not only the ‘no confidence motion’ was carried out but new election to the office of the Chairperson was also held and a new incumbent (appellant Om Prakash) was elected to the office of Chairperson. We would therefore further add to what was held in Rajkumar Jaiswal, supra, by holding that challenge to the notice of ‘no confidence motion’ or to the resolution, if it is passed carrying out such motion by three-fourth majority, should be entertained only if it is immediately made but not in any case after the new election to the office of Chairperson is held and a new incumbent elected. This is because as per the mandate of Article 243ZG(b) of the Constitution, such election could be challenged only in accordance with the provisions of Sections 30, 31 and 43 of the Act of 2009. Any other view would set the democratic process at naught and introduce an element of uncertainty in the working of the local body concerned, thus defeating the constitutional mandate underlying intendment of which is to provide stability to the elected municipal bodies. 20. In view of the above discussion, both the appeals deserve to succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Consequences to follow. 21. This also disposes of the stay applications. Office to place a copy of this judgment in connected file.