Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 57 (MAN)

Thongam Shyamo Singh v. State of Manipur

2019-09-10

K.H.NOBIN SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : K.H. NOBIN SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in writ petition being WP (C) No. 2 of 2018; WP (C) No. 379 of 2019 and WP (C) No. 424 of 2019 while Shri Th. Mahira, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners in writ petition being WP (C) No. 806 of 2018; Shri M. Rarry, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State in all the cases; Shri Romendro Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents in WP (C) No. 2 of 2018 and Ms. Priyashimala, learned Advocate appearing for the Executive Officer in all the cases. 2. Since the above-mentioned writ petitions have arisen out of a similar set of facts, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. WP (C) No. 2 of 2018: 3.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the letter dated 23.12.2017 written by the Under Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur and the requisition dated 29.12.2017 submitted by 9 (nine) Councillors of the Thoubal Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as “the Council”). 3.2. Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that in pursuance of Rule 84 of the Manipur Municipalities (Election of Councilors) Rules, 1994, a list of candidates for being elected as the Councillors of the Council was published vide Notification dated 15.01.2016 and thereafter, the petitioner was elected as the Chairperson of the Council vide Notification dated 09.02.2016. 3.3. On 24.10.2016, 9(nine) Councillors of the Council submitted a requisition to the respondent No. 4, the Executive Officer for convening a meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner under Section 31 of the Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1994”). Accordingly, the Executive Officer issued a notice dated 16.11.2016 informing that a special meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against him will be held on 28.11.2016 at the conference hall of the Deputy Commissioner with the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal at the chair. Accordingly, the Executive Officer issued a notice dated 16.11.2016 informing that a special meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against him will be held on 28.11.2016 at the conference hall of the Deputy Commissioner with the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal at the chair. The said notice dated 16.11.2016 was assailed before this Court by 9(nine) Councillors by way of a writ petition being WP (C) No. 932 of 2016 on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner was not the competent authority under the provisions of the Act, 1994 to preside over a meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 30.11.2016 directing the Executive Officer to fix a date and time for convening a special meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner for which the Vice-Chairperson was directed to chair the meeting. In compliance with the said order, the Executive Officer issued a notice dated 03.12.2016 informing that a meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner be held on 16.12.2016 at 11:30 a.m. at the conference hall of the Council with the Vice-Chairperson at the chair. 3.4. As per the notice dated 03-12-2016, the special meeting was held on 16.12.2016 which was presided over by the Vice-Chairman who being an elected Councillor also, casted his vote. After the meeting and just before counting votes, 9(nine) Councillors of the Council objected to the casting of vote by the Vice-Chairperson, because of which the counting of votes could not be done. Accordingly, a resolution was taken by the Council to seek a clarification from the State Government whether the Vice-Chairperson has the right to cast his vote or not and to keep the ballot box in the safe custody of the Thoubal Police Station. As directed by the Council, the Executive Officer wrote a letter dated 16.12.2016 to the State Government seeking a clarification and by the said letter, the State Government was informed that the Ballot Box which was sealed in the presence of the Councillors, had been kept in the custody of the police station. As directed by the Council, the Executive Officer wrote a letter dated 16.12.2016 to the State Government seeking a clarification and by the said letter, the State Government was informed that the Ballot Box which was sealed in the presence of the Councillors, had been kept in the custody of the police station. The Department of MAHUD, after consultation with the law, vide its letter dated 30.08.2017 clarified that the Vice-Chairperson being an elected Councillors, had the right to cast his vote in the said ‘No-Confidence Motion’ but the Executive Officer, instead of counting votes, wrote another letter dated 31.08.2017 seeking an administrative approval from the State Government for counting of votes. 3.5. In the meantime, on 31.07.2017, 10(ten) Councillors of the Council submitted an application to the Executive Officer for withdrawal of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ and in its meeting held on 31.07.2017 itself, the Councillors took a resolution for withdrawal of the ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner. The Executive Officer vide its letter dated 01.08.2017 informed the State Government about the withdrawal of the ‘No-Confidence Motion’ and the State Government was requested to take up necessary action in that regard. Thereafter, on 03.10.2017, a meeting of the Council was held at the conference hall which took a resolution that since the clarification sought for had been received, the counting of the votes should be done at the earliest. The meeting also resolved for reviewing the resolution taken on 31.07.2017 for withdrawal of the ‘no-confidence of motion’. On 04.10.2017, the Executive Officer informed the State Government about the situation and requested it for conveying the administrative approval for counting of votes. A writ petition being WP (C) No. 818 of 2017 came to be filed by Hijam Jamuna Devi & 7 others praying for direction to the State Government for granting approval/permission to count votes of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ which was held on 16.12.2016 which is alleged to be pending for disposal by this Court. 3.6. As no positive action was taken by the official respondents, the petitioner got a Legal Notice dated 22.12.2017 served upon the Official Respondents not to take any action against the interest of the petitioner. While the petitioner was waiting eagerly for positive actions from the State Government, the respondent No. 2, the Under Secretary (MAHUD) vide its letter dated 23.12.2017 conveyed the approval of the State Government for withdrawal of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner. While the petitioner was waiting eagerly for positive actions from the State Government, the respondent No. 2, the Under Secretary (MAHUD) vide its letter dated 23.12.2017 conveyed the approval of the State Government for withdrawal of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner. Immediately thereafter, 9(nine) Councillors of the Council submitted a requisition dated 29.12.2017 requesting the Executive Officer for conveying a special meeting of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner. Since there is no any provision for withdrawal of the requisition under the provisions of the Act of 1994, the withdrawal of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner is not permissible and therefore, the letter dated 23.12.2017 issued by the Secretary, MAHUD Department hah no legs to stand. Being aggrieved by the said letter dated 23.12.2017 and the requisition dated 29.12.2017, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the private respondents raising a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition was barred by res-judicata, as the substantial question of law had already been raised in the earlier writ petition being WP (C) No. 818 of 2017. It has been stated therein that actually 10 (ten) Councillors made a requisition dated 22.10.2016 for ‘No-Confidence Motion’, against the petitioner, which was to be decided by voice vote and not in the manner as the meeting being conducted by the Presiding Officer. The State Government gave its clarification in law and not to the representation dated 19-12-2016 submitted by them. After no-confidence motion’ having been withdrawn in a meeting held on 31-07-2017, it is not known as to how the Executive Officer vide its letter dated 31-08-2017, sought for approval of counting of votes. The approval for withdrawal of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ by the Councillors, was conveyed by the State Government vide its letter dated 23-12-2017. In the meeting held on 03-10-2017, no agenda for counting of votes was deliberated and no resolution was taken thereof and therefore, the letter dated 04-10-2017 of the Executive Officer was without a resolution of the Council. As the resolution of the Council can be cancelled or modified under the provisions of the Act, 1994, all the Councillors unanimously resolved to withdraw/cancel it in its meeting held on 16-12-2016. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. As the resolution of the Council can be cancelled or modified under the provisions of the Act, 1994, all the Councillors unanimously resolved to withdraw/cancel it in its meeting held on 16-12-2016. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 raising an objection as regards the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that it has been filed mala fidely to stop democratic process and in addition thereto, it has been stated that on a requisition dated 22-10-2016 made by 10(ten) Councillors, a special meeting was held on 16-12-2016 for democratic exercise of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ for removal of the Chairman. The plea taken by the petitioner is contrary to law for the reason that the result of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ was not declared and therefore, it cannot be said to have been declared. The non-declaration of the result on 16-12-2016 resulted in the proceedings of the meeting held on 16-12-2016 being illegal and void. Since the question of defeat or success did not arise in respect of ‘No-Confidence Motion’, the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, 1994 did not stand attracted in respect thereof. Some of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned therein, have been relied upon to substantiate their contentions. WP (C) No. 806 of 2018: 5.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other writ to direct the respondent No. 1, the State Government to grant approval/permission as sought for by the Executive Officer of the Council for counting of votes for ‘No-Confidence Motion’ held on 16.12.2016 against the Chairperson. 5.2. Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioners are the elected Councilors of the Council. On a requisition submitted by 9(nine) Councillors, the Executive Officer of the Council issued a notice dated 03.12.2016 for convening a special meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the Chairperson to be held on 16.12.2016 directing the Vice-Chairperson to preside over the meeting. As per schedule, the said meeting was held on 16.12.2016 which was presided by the Vice-Chairperson. The Presiding Officer being an elected Councillor, casted his vote in the said meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the Chairperson. 5.3. As per schedule, the said meeting was held on 16.12.2016 which was presided by the Vice-Chairperson. The Presiding Officer being an elected Councillor, casted his vote in the said meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the Chairperson. 5.3. After the meeting and before counting of votes, 9(nine) Councillors objected to the casting of votes by the Presiding Officer, because of which there were certain altercations including exchange of words amongst the Councillors and accordingly, the counting of votes could not be done. The ballot box was kept in a sealed cover in the custody of the Officer-in-Charge, Thoubal Police Station with the condition that the counting of votes should be done after obtaining a clarification from the Government as to whether the Presiding Officer had the right to cast his vote. Accordingly, the Executive Officer addressed a letter dated 16.12.2016 requesting the Secretary, MAHUD Department for giving a clarification in the matter. 5.4. After due process, the MAHUD Department, Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 30.08.2017 communicated a clarification to the effect that the Presiding Officer being a Councillor had the right to cast his vote. The Executive Officer vide its letter dated 31.08.2017 requested the MAHUD Department for granting administrative approval for counting of votes for ‘No-Confidence Motion’ but no approval was granted by the MAHUD Department. Since the approval/permission was not granted by the MAHUD Department, the Councillors of the Council took a resolution in an emergency meeting held on 03.10.2017 to the effect that since the clarification had been given by the State Government, the counting of vote should be done at the earliest. In the meantime, on 31.07.2017, 10(ten) Councillors submitted an application to the Executive Officer for withdrawal of the ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the Chairperson which was forwarded to the State Government. On 03.10.2017, a meeting of the Council was held whereby it took a resolution that since the clarification sought for had been received, the counting should be done and the Council also resolved for reviewing the resolution taken on 31.07.2017 for withdrawal of the ‘No-Confidence Motion’. On reviewing the said resolution dated 31.07.2017, the Executive Officer vide its letter dated 04.10.2017 requested the State Government for grant of approval for counting of votes. 5.5. On reviewing the said resolution dated 31.07.2017, the Executive Officer vide its letter dated 04.10.2017 requested the State Government for grant of approval for counting of votes. 5.5. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the State Government, the present petitioners and some others filed a writ petition being WP (C) No. 818 of 2017 which was withdrawn on 20-08-2018 with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition. 5.6. While the petitioners were waiting for a positive response from the State Government, the office of the respondent No. 1, the State Government vide its letter dated 23.12.2017 conveyed its approval for withdrawal of the meeting for consideration of the ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the Chairperson. Thereafter, on 29.12.2017, 9(nine) Councillors of the Council requested the Executive Officer for conveying a special meeting of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the Chairperson. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners on the inter-alia grounds that there is no provision for withdrawal of the requisition under the Manipur Municipality Act and that the letter dated 23.12.2017 conveying the approval for withdrawal, has no legs to stand. While conveying the approval vide letter dated 23.12.2017, the State Government had not considered the resolution taken by the Council in the meeting held on 03.10.2017 for counting of votes. The letter dated 23.12.2017 by which the approval was conveyed, was issued by the State Government to enable the 9(nine) Councillors to move another ‘No-Confidence Motion’. Being aggrieved by the said letter dated 23.12.2019, a writ petition being WP (C) No. 2 of 2018 had been filed by the Chairperson and the same is being considered along with this writ petition. 5.7. An affidavit has been filed by some of the private respondents wherein it has been stated that since the then Vice-Chairperson had tendered his resignation on 01.09.2017 which was unanimously accepted by all the Councillors, the respondent No. 11 was elected as the new Vice-Chairperson vide Notification dated 29.09.2017 and in view thereof, the State Government’s decision to approve the withdrawal of the said ‘No-Confidence Motion’ vide letter dated 23.12.2017 was a reasoned and speaking order. The averment made in the writ petition have been denied and in addition thereto, it has been stated that there was no ballot box by any standard as prescribed in law, instead the Presiding Officer, in a haste manner prepared some papers and cello-taped box with an opening at top for the Councillors to slip in their ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes in a piece of paper, even though their votes were already decided by majority voice vote of the 9(nine) Councillors supporting the motion raising hands by all. There can be no counting of votes as the meeting held on 16.12.2016 was de hors the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, 1994. Every requisition/resolution can be modified or cancelled by a resolution of the Council and any proceeding which is not in conformity with the provisions of law can be cancelled. Since Section 31 of the Act, 1994 does not provide for secret voting in a ‘No-Confidence Motion’, the same is liable to be cancelled by the Council and a fresh requisition can be taken by it. WP (C) No. 379 of 2019: 6.1. The validity and correctness of the notice dated 29.04.2019 issued by the respondent No. 4, the Executive Officer; a letter dated 29.04.2019 issued by the respondent No. 2, the Under Secretary (MAHUD) and the requisition dated 08.04.2019 submitted by the 13(thirteen) Councillors are under challenge in this writ petition. 6.2. Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is an elected Councillor of the Council vide Notification dated 15.01.2016 and on 09.02.2016, he was elected as the Chairperson of the Council. 6.3. 9 (Nine) Councillors of the Council submitted a requisition dated 24.10.2016 for convening a meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion against him. The Executive Officer issued a notice dated 16.11.2016 for the meeting to be held on 28.11.2016. Since some Councillors assailed it, the Executive Officer, in terms of this Court’s order dated 30.11.2016, issued a notice dated 03.12.2016 for holding the special meeting on 16.12.2016. 6.4. As per schedule, the said meeting was held on 16.12.2016 and after the meeting was over but before counting was done, 9(nine) Councillors objected to the casting of vote by the Presiding Officer. 6.4. As per schedule, the said meeting was held on 16.12.2016 and after the meeting was over but before counting was done, 9(nine) Councillors objected to the casting of vote by the Presiding Officer. Thereafter, a resolution was taken by the Council to seek clarification from the State Government and while awaiting the clarification from the government, the ballot box was kept in the custody of the police station. 6.5. On 31.07.2017, 10(ten) Councillors submitted an application for withdrawal of ‘no-confidence of motion’ which was forwarded to the State Government for approval. On 03.10.2017, a meeting of the Council was held whereby it resolved to review the resolution taken on 31.07.2017 and took a resolution for rejection of the withdrawal application. The Executive Officer vide its letter dated 04.10.2017 requested the State Government for grant of approval for counting of votes. 6.6. While the petitioner was waiting for a positive action from the State Government, the Under Secretary (MAHUD) vide its letter dated 23.12.2017 conveyed the approval of the State Government for withdrawal of the ‘No-Confidence Motion’. Thereafter, 9(nine) Councillors of the Council vide its letter dated 29.12.2017 requested the Executive Officer for conveying a special meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against him. 7. An affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondents No. 1 & 2 has been filed and since the stand taken herein is similar to that of the one taken by them in their affidavit filed in WP (C) No. 2 of 2018, the same is not repeated here for the sake of brevity. WP (C) No. 424 of 2019: 8.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the entire proceedings of the special meeting held on 10-05-2019 for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against him at the Conference Hall of the Council. 8.2. Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner who is elected as a Councillor of the Council, was elected as its Chairperson vide Notification dated 09.02.2016. 8.3. 9(nine) Councillors of the Council submitted a requisition dated 24.10.2016 to the Executive Officer for convening a meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against him under Section 31 of the Act, 1994 and the special meeting which was held on 16-12-2016, was presided over by Vice-Chairperson of the Council. 8.3. 9(nine) Councillors of the Council submitted a requisition dated 24.10.2016 to the Executive Officer for convening a meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against him under Section 31 of the Act, 1994 and the special meeting which was held on 16-12-2016, was presided over by Vice-Chairperson of the Council. After the meeting was over but before counting of votes, 9(nine) Councillors objected to the casting of vote by the Vice-Chairperson. Thereafter, a resolution was taken by the Council to seek a clarification from the State Government whether the Vice-Chairperson had the right to cast his vote, while the ballot box was kept in the custody of the Thoubal Police Station. 8.4. As directed by the Council, the Executive Officer wrote a letter dated 16.12.2016 and on receipt thereof, the Department of MAHUD, after consultation with the Law Department, vide its letter dated 30.08.2017 clarified that the Vice-Chairperson had the right to cast his vote. However, the Executive Officer, instead of counting of votes, wrote another letter dated 31.08.2017 to the State Government seeking administrative approval for counting of votes. 8.5. In the meantime, on 31-07-2017 some of the Councillors approached the Executive Officer for withdrawal of the ‘No-Confidence Motion’ who, in turn, vide its letter dated 01.08.2017 informed the State Government regarding the withdrawal of the ‘No-Confidence Motion’. Thereafter, on 03.10.2017, a meeting of the Council was held which took a resolution that since the clarification sought for by the Council had been received, the counting of votes should be done at the earliest. The Council also resolved to review the resolution taken on 31.07.2017 for withdrawal of the ‘No-Confidence Motion’ and took a resolution for rejecting it. The Executive Officer vide its letter dated 04.10.2017 informed the State Government about the situation requesting for conveying the administrative approval for counting of votes. A writ petition being WP (C) No. 806 of 2018 came to be filed before this Court by some of the Councillors praying for a direction to the State respondents for giving approval/permission for counting of votes. 8.6. While the petitioner was awaiting for a positive action from the State Government towards counting of votes, the Under Secretary, MAHUD vide its letter dated 23.12.2017 conveyed the approval of the State Government for withdrawal of the meeting for consideration of the ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against him. 8.6. While the petitioner was awaiting for a positive action from the State Government towards counting of votes, the Under Secretary, MAHUD vide its letter dated 23.12.2017 conveyed the approval of the State Government for withdrawal of the meeting for consideration of the ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against him. Thereafter, 9(nine) Councillors of the Council submitted a requisition dated 29.12.2017 requesting the Executive Officer for conveying a special meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner. 8.7. Being aggrieved by the said letter dated 23.12.2017, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP (C) No. 2 of 2018 for quashing it. This Court vide its order dated 04.01.2018 suspended the operation of the said letter dated 23.12.2017 which was extended until further order. In the meantime, a requisition dated 16.11.2017 was submitted by 8(eight) Councillors to the Executive Officer requesting him to convey a special meeting to disqualify the petitioner from being a Councillor. The State Government, without any due process of law, by exercising power conferred under Section 58 & 59 of the Act, 1994 issued an order dated 31.01.2018 disqualifying him from being the Councillor of the Council. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 31.01.2018, the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP (C) No. 90 of 2018 praying for quashing it which was suspended vide order dated 02.02.2018 passed by this Court and consequently, the State Government issued an order dated 13.02.2018 cancelling the disqualification order dated 31.01.2018 with immediate effect. 8.8. Despite the existence of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without any due process of law, the State Government issued an order dated 12.11.2018 disqualifying the petitioner again from being the Councillor of the Council which was again assailed by the petitioner by way of a writ petition being WP (C) No. 1049 of 2018. This Court vide its order dated 15.11.2018 suspended the order dated 12.11.2018. This Court vide its order dated 15.11.2018 suspended the order dated 12.11.2018. Since the effort for disqualification of the petitioner was not materialized, some of the Councillors engaged 11 (eleven) persons whose identity are not disclosed, filed a petition dated 08.12.2018 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Manipur for dissolving the Council and accordingly, the State Government issued an order dated 10.01.2019 suspending the Council for a period of 6(six) months with immediate effect which was assailed by 10(ten) Councillors by way of a writ petition being WP (C) No. 40 of 2019 and this Court while issuing notice to the respondents, vide order dated 22.01.2019, suspended the order dated 10.01.2019. 8.9. As all the actions taken by some of the Councillors as well as by the State Government for removal or for disqualifying the petitioner, were not materialized due to the intervention of this Court, some Councillors in collusion with the State Government filed a requisition dated 08.04.2019 to the Executive Officer for convening a meeting for consideration of the ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner. The Under Secretary vide its letter dated 27.04.2019 informed the Executive Officer to convene a special meeting for consideration of the ‘No-Confidence Motion’ under Section 31 of the Act, 1994 and accordingly, the Executive Officer issued a notice dated 29.04.2019 fixing 10.05.2019 as a date of consideration for ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against him. The said notice dated 29.04.2019 was assailed by the petitioner by way of a writ petition being WP (C) No. 379 of 2019 in which this Court vide its order dated 08.05.2019 directed that the special meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against him be held as scheduled on 10.05.2019 but the result thereof should not be declared by any person and the same be handed over to this Court in a sealed cover. As directed by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2019, a special meeting was held with the Vice-Chairperson at the chair. In spite of the order being passed by this Court directing that the result should not be declared, the Executive Officer opened the Ballot Box and counted the votes and submitted it thereafter vide its letter dated 10.05.2019 in the Registry. Being aggrieved by the actions of the Executive Officer, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 9. Being aggrieved by the actions of the Executive Officer, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 9. Part IX-A of the Constitution of India deals with the constitution of Municipalities including the Municipal Councils and their power and functions. The object of introducing Part IX-A was to provide constitutional status to such local bodies and to ensure regular and fair conduct of elections so that the peoples’ participation in the political administration of the Government and in particular, the local bodies, is well assured to a great extent. Our country being a democratic one, needs to strengthen the peoples’ participation in the process of decision making through their elected representatives. In this regard, the observations made by this court in WP (C) No. 393 of 2018 are relevant which read as under: “[10] Our country is considered to be one of the largest democratic countries in the world having a representative form of Government. Truly speaking, in a democracy, a country is like a family whose decision is taken through active participation of all members sitting together. When it comes to the case of a country having a large number of population, at the time of taking any decision, it is impossible for all the citizens to come and sit at a particular place and therefore, the representative system has been introduced so that its decision can be taken through the elected representatives of the people. What does the expression ‘democracy’ mean and what is it about, has been considered and explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratap Chandra Mehta case (supra) and the observations made therein need no repetition for the sake of brevity. However the Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that every democracy is based upon the freedom to elect and freedom to remove, in accordance with law. In the context of MP Rules, it has been observed that Rule 122-A contemplates moving of a non confidence motion and upon such motion being passed by the majority of the members, present and voting, the officer bearers against who such a motion is moved, shall be liable to be removed from such office. For successful application of Rule 122-A, the law requires the minimal conditions to be satisfied as mentioned therein. For successful application of Rule 122-A, the law requires the minimal conditions to be satisfied as mentioned therein. Once the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied, no confidence motion can be passed and upon passing of such motion, the person is liable to be removed from the office he held in the State Bar Council prior to holding of such meeting. The spirit behind this provision is that where a person is elected by following a due process of election to the post of an office in the State Bar Council, he could be removed by following the prescribed procedure in accordance with the rules.” (Emphasized) 10.1. The subject matter in issue relates to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, 1994 and the same reads as under: “31. No-confidence motion against Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson - (1) Every Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith if the resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of the total number of Councillors constituting the Council or the Nagar Panchayat at a meeting specially convened for the purpose (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1) a meeting of the Nagar 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-third 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 to every Councillor 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. (v) No such meeting convened under sub-section (2) shall be adjourned for any reason except on the ground of natural calamities affecting the meeting. (iv) a copy of the notice shall be sent to the State Government. (v) No such meeting convened under sub-section (2) shall be adjourned for any reason except on the ground of natural calamities affecting the meeting. 2(a) 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. (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. 31 A. Restriction on motion of no-confidence:-If the motion of no-confidence against the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson, as the case may be, is defeated, no fresh motion of no-confidence against the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson or both, as the case may be, shall be brought before the Council or the Nagar Panchayat, as the case may be, within a period of one year from the date of such defeat of the motion.” 10.2. In Maulavy Hussein Haji Abraham Umaji vs. State of Gujarat, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that while interpreting a provision, the court can only interpret the law and cannot legislate it. In Sangeeta Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 484 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is well settled principle in law that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision or a stipulated condition which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. 10.3. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, 1994 can be examined by this Court. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. 10.3. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, 1994 can be examined by this Court. Sub-section (1) provides that every Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson shall be deemed to have vacated his office, if a resolution expressing want of confidence in him is passed by a majority of the total number of councilors at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. In other words, such a resolution cannot be passed at any meeting except at a meeting specially convened for that purpose. The manner in which such a special meeting is to be convened, is provided in sub-section (2). Sub-section (2) further provides that such a meeting shall be convened by the Executive Officer on a requisition signed by not less than one-third of the total number of councilors and only a requisition is mentioned therein. What will happen if more than one requisition is submitted for the same purpose, is not envisaged at all. But the expression “a requisition” is significant and therefore, if there are more than one requisition, only one is to be considered for initiating process and that too, after the withdrawal of the other. On receipt of such a requisition, a notice of a meeting specifying the time and place thereof shall be dispatched by the Executive Officer to every councilor ten days before the meeting. The use of the word “dispatched” is also significant and is different from the use of the word “served”. The duty of the Executive Officer stands discharged, when the notice has been dispatched to every councilor ten days before the meeting. It is not clear as to whether the notice as contemplated under sub-section (2), shall be dispatched through the post or a courier and as to what will happen, when the notice is not received by a councilor. Sub-section (2) is silent on the said issues. No such meeting convened under sub-section (2) shall be adjourned for any reason except on the ground of natural calamities affecting the meeting. The expression “natural calamities” is important and is qualified by the expression “affecting the meeting”. Sub-section (2) is silent on the said issues. No such meeting convened under sub-section (2) shall be adjourned for any reason except on the ground of natural calamities affecting the meeting. The expression “natural calamities” is important and is qualified by the expression “affecting the meeting”. Both the expressions are to be read together and the conjoint reading thereof makes it clear that such a meeting can be adjourned, only when it is affected by the natural calamities. A mere natural calamity is not sufficient and it must affect the meeting. In other words, it can be said that such a meeting shall be adjourned, if its holding is not possible on account of the natural calamities. The corollary issue is as to whether such a meeting can be cancelled either on the request made by some of the councilors or on the withdrawal of the requisition. Sub-section (2) is silent on this issue too. What will be the consequence, if the special meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ is adjourned to, other than the ground of natural calamities as aforesaid, is also not provided in the Act, 1994 and the rules made thereunder. But since there is a specific provision that no such special meeting can be adjourned, if it is adjourned not on the ground as mentioned therein, no special meeting can be held again for the same purpose and in case such special meeting is held again, it will be rendered contrary to law and the consequence ought to follow it. In respect of the issue relating to withdrawal of a requisition, this Court had the occasion to examine and consider it in the case of Shri M.L. Markson and Others vs. State of Manipur, WP (C) No. 555 of 2018 in relation to Section 23 of the District Council Act, 1971. The relevant para thereof reads as under: “The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is correct to the extent that it has been held by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court that there is no provision in the Act for withdrawal of requisition and hence, the withdrawal thereof is impermissible but the contrary view has been taken by some of the High Courts in the country whose decisions have been heavily relied upon by Shri Julius Riamei. In Ramachandra case (supra), the Rajasthan High Court considered an issue as to when the notice of motion of non-confidence becomes effective, which arose out of the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 wherein there is no any provision on the subject. It held that in the absence of any statutory provision, it would be reasonable to hold that it becomes effective only when the authority charged with final action has acted upon it. It has further been held that notice of motion of non-confidence could be withdrawn by its author before it actually came up for consideration before the meeting called for the purpose. The ratio of this judgment has been relied upon and followed in Kedarnath Saini case and Jagdish Prasad case (supra). In Tarun Badar case (supra), the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held that there is no provision in the statute or under the rules which provides for withdrawal of “no-confidence motion” after a meeting has been convened. Under proviso to sub-rule 1 of rule 72 A of the 1978 rules, a motion of no-confidence may be withdrawn at any time before the meeting is convened for that purpose. This decision has been relied upon by the same High Court in Ranbir Singh case (supra). Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University case (supra), Shri M. Hemchandra, Senior Advocate has submitted that a decision, as is well known, is an authority for which it is decided and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. In Eera case (supra), it has been held that while interpreting social welfare or beneficent legislation, one has to be guided by colour, content and context of statutes. Judge has to release himself from chains of strict linguistic interpretation and pave path that serves soul of legislative intention and in that event, he becomes a real creative constructionist judge. It is thus seen that no decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court directly on the issue has been brought to the notice of this Court and at the same time, the decisions rendered by the High Courts in the country are not binding on this Court except their persuasive value. It is thus seen that no decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court directly on the issue has been brought to the notice of this Court and at the same time, the decisions rendered by the High Courts in the country are not binding on this Court except their persuasive value. Having examined and considered the decisions relied upon by the counsels appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that the views expressed by the Rajasthan High Court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana appear to be correct for the reason that a requisition/notice, if not yet acted upon, is a mere intimation or a request for convening a meeting, the withdrawal thereof will not affect or prejudice the substantive right or interest of the other members including the Adhyaksha or the Chairman as the case may be and therefore, this Court endorses their views to the effect that a requisition/notice can be withdrawn provided it has not been acted upon by the authority concerned. Section 23 of the District Councils Act provides for a mechanism for removal of the Chairman for which the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the District Council Rules, 1972 is to be followed and the first step prescribed therein is the notice to be delivered which should contain a brief statement of the reasons for moving the resolution. In fact, it is a part of the procedure which has nothing to do with the merit of the resolution. Rule 7 specifically provides for such a notice in writing to be delivered by the ADC members which intend to move a resolution for removal of the Chairman and there is no harm in allowing the withdrawal of the notice before it is acted upon nor is there any specific provision in the District Councils Act, 1971 or the rules made thereunder which prohibits the withdrawal of the notice.” 11.1. The whole controversy has arisen out of the desire expressed by some of the Councillors for removal of the Chairperson of the Council, for which the procedure prescribed in Section 31 of the Act, 1994 is to be strictly followed by them. There are altogether four requisitions, involved in these writ petitions, which are submitted by some of the Councillors, one after another, for the same purpose as seen from the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove. There are altogether four requisitions, involved in these writ petitions, which are submitted by some of the Councillors, one after another, for the same purpose as seen from the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove. As has been observed hereinabove, all the requisitions cannot be considered for initiating process by the Executive Officer at one time or simultaneously, as only one requisition is contemplated under the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, 1994 for removal of the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairman and the second requisition can be submitted only after the first one having been withdrawn. The parties herein have taken contradictory stands as regards the validity and correctness of the said requisitions. If a requisition is not valid, any action taken thereon shall be rendered irregular or illegal. The short question that arises for consideration by this Court is as to which one of them is valid requisition in the light of the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, 1994. Admittedly, the first requisition is the one dated 22-10-2016 submitted by 10(ten) Councillors for removal of the Chairperson but it is not clear as to when it was submitted by them and received by the Executive Officer. On perusal of the document itself namely the requisition dated 22-10-2016 filed along with the counter affidavit of the private respondents, it is seen that it was entered in the Register vide RR No. 477 dated 24-10-2016. 11.2. The second requisition dated 24-10-2016 was submitted by 9(nine) Councilors out of the said 10(ten) Councillors for removal of the Chairperson and the same was entered in the Register vide RR No. 476 dated 24-10-2016. Both the requisitions dated 22-10-2016 and 24-10-2016 are registered on the same day and by the same person with a variation of hardly one minute and the requisition dated 24-10-2016 was registered earlier than the requisition dated 22-10-2016 in point of time only. The corollary issue is as to which one of them is a valid and correct requisition which can be considered by the Executive Officer for initiating process. There is no material on record to show that the second requisition was submitted after the withdrawal of the first one. The corollary issue is as to which one of them is a valid and correct requisition which can be considered by the Executive Officer for initiating process. There is no material on record to show that the second requisition was submitted after the withdrawal of the first one. Both the requisitions have been registered by the office of the Executive Officer who failed to put a question to the Councillors as to which one of the requisitions, be taken into consideration for ‘No-Confidence Motion’ nor did he consult the MAHUD Department. Here lies the problem which is reflected in its notice dated 16-11-2016 in which both the requisitions are referred to thereby showing that the Executive Officer himself did not know which one of the requisitions ought to have been taken up by him for consideration. The said notice dated 16-11-2016 came be challenged in WP (C) No. 932 of 2016 which was disposed of by this Court on 30-11-2016 with the direction that the special meeting be convened by the Executive Officer but it be presided over by the Vice-Chairperson. In compliance therewith, a notice dated 03-12-2016 was issued by the Executive Officer wherein it is nowhere mentioned that the special meeting be held in respect of the requisition dated 24-10-2016 or 22-10-2016. Without any clarity and reference as regards the requisitions, the special meeting was held on 16-12-2016 as scheduled and without counting of votes on account of the objection being raised by 9 (nine) Councillors, the meeting was adjourned until the next meeting which is impermissible in law and the ballot box was kept in the custody of the police. The resolution taken on that day for seeking clarification, did not mention anything about a particular requisition. As the clarification was not received by the Executive Officer for more than six months, 10(ten) Councillors addressed a letter dated 31-07-2017 to the Executive Officer praying for withdrawal of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ and on the same day, a meeting of the Council was held in which it was resolved to accept it. On 01-08-2017, in view of the letter dated 31-07-2017 for withdrawal of ‘No-Confidence Motion’, the Executive Officer requested the Addl. Chief Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur to take necessary action in that regard. On 01-08-2017, in view of the letter dated 31-07-2017 for withdrawal of ‘No-Confidence Motion’, the Executive Officer requested the Addl. Chief Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur to take necessary action in that regard. Without any reference to the letter dated 01-08-2017 of the Executive Officer, the Under Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur addressed a letter dated 30-08-2017 to it clarifying that the Presiding Officer had the right to cast vote and on receipt thereof, the Executive Officer vide its letter dated 31-08-2017 sought for approval from the Addl. Chief Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur for counting of votes. Consequent upon the clarification given by the MAHUD Department, on 03-10-2017 a meeting of the Council was held whereby it was resolved that the ballot box be opened and the votes be counted. It was further resolved that the application dated 31-07-2017 for withdrawal of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ was rejected. In terms of the resolution taken on 03-10-2017, the Executive Officer vide its letter dated 04-10-2017 sought for approval from the Commissioner (MAHUD), Government of Manipur for counting of votes. In the absence of a reference to the letter dated 04-10-2017, the Under Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur vide its letter dated 23-12-2017 conveyed the approval of the State Government to the withdrawal of the ‘No-Confidence Motion’. After the letter dated 23-12-2017 of the Under Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur, conveying the approval for withdrawal of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ being received by the Executive Officer, 9 (nine) Councillors submitted a requisition for convening a special meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the Chairperson. The validity and correctness of the letter dated 3-12-2017 and the requisition dated 29-12-2017 is being challenged in this writ petition. 11.3. From the aforesaid facts, one thing which is absolutely clear and not in dispute amongst the parties, is that two requisitions dated 22-10-2016 and 24-10-2016 were submitted by the Councillors for convening a special meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the Chairperson, the petitioner herein. But it was not clear to the Executive Officer as to which was of them was to be considered for taking appropriate action in terms of the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, 1994 as is evident from its notice dated 16-11-2016 itself. But it was not clear to the Executive Officer as to which was of them was to be considered for taking appropriate action in terms of the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, 1994 as is evident from its notice dated 16-11-2016 itself. The right course of action which ought to have been taken by the Executive Officer at that point of time, was to inform the Councillors about these two requisitions and only one of them should have been considered for taking action towards convening of a special meeting, after the other was withdrawn by them. The Executive Officer had utterly failed to do so and in other words, it had failed to apply its mind except having unnecessary correspondence with the State Government. In any of the documents relating to actions taken either by the Executive Officer or the Councillors or the State Government upto the letter dated 23-12-2017 being written for conveying the approval for withdrawal of the ‘No-Confidence Motion’, none of the said two requisitions was referred to therein at all. None of the said two requisitions has been withdrawn by the Councillors with the result that both are still in operation for the reason that both are still in the records of the Executive Officer pending for disposal. The letter dated 31-07-2017 by which the ‘No-Confidence Motion’ was sought to be withdrawn, did not mention any of the said two requisitions. As has been observed hereinabove, only a requisition, at a time, is contemplated in Section 31 of the Act, 1994 and therefore, both the requisitions cannot be considered at the same time by the Executive Officer. It has been contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the requisition dated 24-10-2016 has been acted upon and therefore, the Council be permitted to count the votes, while the stand of the State Government is that the requisition dated 22-10-2016 has been acted upon. On top of that, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents is that none of the requisitions was valid and there was no question of their being acted upon. His contention can be said to be correct to the extent that no action can be taken by the Executive Officer on the basis of any of the said requisitions. His contention can be said to be correct to the extent that no action can be taken by the Executive Officer on the basis of any of the said requisitions. Considering the facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that since nobody knew as to which one of the two requisitions, had been taken up and considered by the Executive Officer for convening a special meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the Chairperson, all actions taken by the Executive Officer or any of the Councillors either pursuant to the requisition dated 22-10-2016 or the requisition dated 24-10-2016, as the case may be, were rendered illegal. In view of this observation made by this Court, the writ petition being WP (C) No. 806 of 2018 is devoid of any merit and accordingly, no relief prayed for therein can be granted at all by this Court. 12. The requisition dated 29-12-2017 is the third one submitted by 9(nine) Councillors after the letter dated 23-12-2017 of the Under Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur, conveying the approval for withdrawal of ‘No-Confidence Motion’, being received by the Executive Officer. It is not known to anyone as to whether the withdrawal of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ as stated in the letter dated 31-07-2017 is the one initiated pursuant to the requisition dated 22-10-2016 or the requisition dated 24-10-2016. There is no material on record to show that the said requisitions dated 22-10-2016 and 24-10-2016 have been withdrawn by the Councillors, as has been observed hereinabove. When the letter dated 23-12-1027 along with the requisition dated 24-12-2017 was challenged before this Court, the same had been suspended vide an order dated 04-01-2018 passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 2 of 2018. Therefore, the corollary issue is as to whether this third requisition is legally valid or not. In other words, the issue is whether the third requisition can be said to have been submitted by the said Councillors in terms of the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, 1994. The answer is in the negative for the reason that a new requisition cannot be submitted by the Councillors before the earlier requisitions have not been withdrawn, otherwise it will be rendered invalid. The idea underlying behind it, is that since only a requisition is contemplated under Section 31 of the Act, 1994, it shall either be acted upon or withdrawn by them. The idea underlying behind it, is that since only a requisition is contemplated under Section 31 of the Act, 1994, it shall either be acted upon or withdrawn by them. The requisition dated 22-10-2016 or the requisition dated 24-10-2016, as the case may be, has not yet been withdrawn nor has it been acted upon. Therefore, the submission of the requisition dated 29-12-2017 by the Councillors, without the earlier requisitions being withdrawn by them, is contrary to the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, 1994 and is accordingly liable to be quashed and set aside. 13. On 31-01-2018, in exercise of power conferred under Section 58 and 59 of the Act, the Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur issued an order disqualifying the Chairperson, Shri Th. Shyamo Singh from being a Councilor of the Council mainly on the ground of lapses regarding the non-collection of outstanding amount of Rs. 29,85,400/- as entry toll tax. This order dated 31-01-2018 was challenged by the Chairperson, Shri Th. Shyamo Singh by way of a writ petition being WP (C) No. 90 of 2018 wherein this Court vide its order dated 02-02-2018 suspended it. A letter dated 22-03-2018 appears to have been submitted making allegations against the Chairperson who was asked to submit his reply which he did it on 09-04-2018. As his reply thereto was not satisfactory, the Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal was directed to hold an enquiry into it and submit a report thereof. After due examination of the report, a show cause notice dated 29-10-2018 was issued to the Chairperson as to why action should not be taken against him. The Chairperson submitted his reply dated 05-11-2018 to the said show cause notice and the State Government, having not satisfied with his reply, issued an order dated 01-11-2018 by which the Chairperson, Shri Th. Shyamo Singh was disqualified from being a Councillor. This order dated 01-11-2018 too, was suspended by this Court vide its order dated 15-11-2018 passed in WP (C) No. 1049 of 2018. As many as fifteen persons whose details are not disclosed, submitted a representation dated 08-12-2018 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Manipur praying for its dissolution. A show cause notice dated 14-12-2018 was issued to the Council through the Executive Officer and a reply thereto was submitted by it on 02-01-2019 which was found to be not satisfactory. As many as fifteen persons whose details are not disclosed, submitted a representation dated 08-12-2018 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Manipur praying for its dissolution. A show cause notice dated 14-12-2018 was issued to the Council through the Executive Officer and a reply thereto was submitted by it on 02-01-2019 which was found to be not satisfactory. Accordingly, the Under Secretary (MAHUD), Government issued an order dated 10-01-2019 suspending the Council for six months and the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Thoubal was allowed to exercise and perform the powers and duties of the Council during the period of suspension. This order dated 10-01-2019 was also suspended by this Court vide its order dated 22-01-2019 passed in WP (C) No. 40 of 2019. Thereafter, the fourth requisition dated 08-04-2019 was submitted by 13 (Thirteen) Councillors for convening a special meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the Chairperson. On receipt of it, the Executive Officer sought for advice from the State Government as regards the steps to be taken by it. The Executive Officer was granted permission vide a letter dated 27-04-2019 of the Under Secretary (MAHUD), Government of Manipur to convene a special meeting in the manner as provided under Section 31 of the Act, 1994. Accordingly, a notice dated 29-04-2019 was issued by the Executive Officer informing that a special meeting be held on 10-05-2019 which is a subject matter in issue in WP (C) No. 424 of 2019 wherein this Court, while issuing notice to the respondents, refused to interfere with the holding of the special meeting with a rider that the result thereof should not be declared and it would be handed over to the registry of this Court. The question is whether the fourth requisition dated 08-04-2019 is legally valid or not. The answer is in the negative, as it will have the same fate as that of the third requisition for the reason that the earlier requisitions have not so far been withdrawn by the Councillors. As the fourth requisition is invalid and bad in law, the resolution taken on 10-05-2019 by the Council will have no meaning and value at all and cannot be given effect to by any means. 14. As the fourth requisition is invalid and bad in law, the resolution taken on 10-05-2019 by the Council will have no meaning and value at all and cannot be given effect to by any means. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have cited and relied upon various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order to substantiate their contentions and there can be no dispute about the law laid down therein by the Hon’ble Supreme Court but since the facts of those cases are not similar to that of the present cases, the said decisions will have no relevance and application so far as the present cases are concerned. In other words, the interpretation of the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, 1994 is not involved in any of those cases. The issues involved herein are, therefore, required to be considered in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present cases. A strange stand has been taken by the State Government in their affidavit that the Act and rules made thereunder, prescribing the mode of moving ‘No-Confidence Motion’ or proceedings thereof cannot be faulted nor the Court ought to stop such process as it would lead to destruction of democracy. It may be noted that this Court has never interfered with and will not interfere with the process of democracy at all and what is a democracy as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has been explained hereinabove. In the event of any petition being filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by an aggrieved person alleging non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, 1994 including that of Section 31 by any authority, this Court is duty bound by law to examine whether the procedure prescribed therein has been followed by it or not and pass appropriate orders including interim order by applying its judicious mind. If any person or for that matter, the State Government is aggrieved by any order of this Court, it is open to him/it to prefer an appeal against it. In other words, it is impermissible for the parties including the State Government in a case to make any malicious comment on any order passed by this Court. It may tantamount to contemptuous act which all parties may note in their own interest. In other words, it is impermissible for the parties including the State Government in a case to make any malicious comment on any order passed by this Court. It may tantamount to contemptuous act which all parties may note in their own interest. This is the constitutional scheme as envisaged in the Constitution of India. The manner in which a requisition is to be submitted by the Councillors and the procedure to be followed by the Executive Officer thereafter for convening a special meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’, has been provided in Section 31 of the Act, 1994. In order to regulate and prevent the misuse of democratic process by some unscrupulous persons, the specific procedure has been prescribed in Section 31 of the Act, 1994 and the same is to be strictly followed by all concerned including the Councillors, the Executive Officer, State Government etc. It is the high time for the Executive Officers and the Councillors, irrespective of a particular Council in the State, to get themselves fully equipped and well versed with the technicalities as contained in Section 31 of the Act, 1994 or any other relevant sections thereof before any step is taken by them in order to obviate any litigation. They cannot act in a casual manner in such a serious matter and ought to apply their mind well in advance so that they may be able to take care of themselves from committing any mistake. In this regard, it may be noted that the role to be played by the State Government is not contemplated anywhere in Section 31 of the Act, 1994 and therefore, any interference by the State Government is not called for. The Council being a statutory body, the Executive Officer has to exercise its power and functions in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1994 but this Court is unable to understand as to why the Executive Officer keeps on getting in touch with the State Government as and when action is to be taken by it in accordance with law. It is not required for the Executive Officer to do so in the discharge of its normal duties and functions. In other words, it is not incumbent upon the Executive Officer to seek approval or order from the State Government, every now and then, in the exercise of its power and functions. It is not required for the Executive Officer to do so in the discharge of its normal duties and functions. In other words, it is not incumbent upon the Executive Officer to seek approval or order from the State Government, every now and then, in the exercise of its power and functions. It has to do what is provided in the Act, 1994 and the rules made thereunder and nothing else. Only when the Council fails to discharge its duties and function in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1994, the role of the State Government will come into play and until then, the State Government shall restrain itself from interfering with the functioning of the Council which is a statutory body. While exercising its power conferred under the provisions of the Act, 1994, the State Government ought to act fairly and reasonably and is not to be guided by any extraneous consideration or an evil motive. All the Councils in the State shall be treated equally by the State Government in matters relating to removal of the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson of a Council, otherwise any action taken by the State Government shall be rendered unreasonable being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 15. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances and for the reasons stated hereinabove, all the four writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (a) It is open to the Councillors to submit a fresh requisition for convening a special meeting for consideration of ‘No-Confidence Motion’ against the Chairperson as provided under the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, 1994. (b) In the event of such a requisition being submitted by the Councillors in terms of the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, 1994, the Executive Officer shall take appropriate steps as envisaged in it. (c) All the stakeholders including the Councillors, the Executive Officer, State Government etc. ought to ensure that the democratic process is commenced correctly and smoothly and concluded in accordance with law so that there shall be no any room for anyone to approach the Court questioning it.